Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ORPINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Consideration deferred till Thursday.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir HARRY LEGGE-BOURKE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm an Order to provide for the construction and maintenance of a road bridge across the Firth of Tay from the City of Dundee to the County of Fife and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sum lent by the Secretary of State under the said Act.—[Mr. Noble.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

African Land Settlement

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to stabilise land prices in Kenya.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State far the Colonies if he will make a statement on the progress of land settlement in Kenya, on his proposals for agricultural development and on the assurance of the agricultural economy of Kenya.

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the outline plan he has proposed to the Government of Kenya for the settlement of Africans on land to be acquired from European farmers will be administered by an authority broadly enough based to be independent of political parties in Kenya, so that the arrangements will command the confidence of ail concerned regardless of the party in office.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): By the end of last month over 200,000 acres had been purchased or approved for purchase for African land settlement in Kenya. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to finance the expansion of the present scheme up to a total of about 1 million acres of predominantly mixed farming land; and the Kenya Government have been invited to put forward proposals for high density settlement at the rate of about 200,000 acres a year. When this scheme is nearing completion, we would be prepared to consider providing assistance for a further extension. The new scheme will be administered by a Central Land Board, which will include one member from each Region and one from the Central Government, with a chairman chosen in such a way as to ensure his independence. We hope that this plan will not only provide smallholdings for large numbers of African farmers, but will also help to stabilise land values.

Mr. Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply,


which I think is a real step forward towards stabilising land values in Kenya. Will he give an assurance that all of this fund will not be channelled into the purchase of mixed farms but that some money will be allocated for the purchase of specialised farms, ranches and plantations?

Mr. Sandys: The money will not necessarily be used exclusively for mixed farming land, but that is the overriding need.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the value of this policy depends a great deal on the speed with which it is carried out? Will he do all he can to accelerate the implementation of this policy? Particularly, can he say Whether he is making any special provision for the Settlement Board European farmers to whom Her Majesty's Government owe a particular obligation?

Mr. Sandys: I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would table a separate Question on the second part of his supplementary question. In answer to the first part, it is, of course, our intention to try to speed up this process to the utmost. As things are now going, it looks as though we shall have managed to resettle about 5,000 families by the end of this year, but, if the plan is carried out as we hope, over the next four years about 70,000 further families wild be settled in this way.

Sir A. Hurd: While warmly welcoming this project, which some of us have discussed for many months, may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep in mind all the time that its success depends mainly on the confidence which Europeans and Africans have in the integrity and impartiality of the Board? It is most important to have a broad-based Board and the right men to tackle the job from the start.

Mr. Sandys: I think that we have fully recognised that. It is one of the reasons why the Board is to be composed in the way that I indicated. The intention is to obtain a chairman, who will occupy a very important position, from outside Kenya.

Mr. Healey: I also welcome most warmly the right hon. Gentleman's state-meat and hope that he will use his influ-

ence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend this programme as soon as possible. May I ask two questions? First, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in operating this programme he will be guided by the same principle as his predecessor, namely, that the interests of African agriculture will take priority over other considerations? Secondly, can he say what plans he has for increasing agricultural training for Africans in order to keep pace with the new responsibilities which will be placed on Africans by the scheme?

Mr. Sandys: Naturally, we will do what we can to ensure that people are fitted for the responsibilities which the scheme will lay on them. We fully recognise the high importance of securing a rapid land settlement of large numbers of African families. On the other hand, it is our intention, and it is right that it should be so, to carry out any of these schemes in a manner which will be fair to all sections of the population.

Mr. Brockway: I also welcome this scheme. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a good deal of disappointment among Africans and Europeans about the extent of its immediate application? Is not this a very happy occasion when the compensation needs of the landless Africans and the European farmers coincide? Should not the greatest opportunity be taken to extend this scheme as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Sandys: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no conflict in this between the interests of the Africans and the interests of the Europeans. I certainly endorse the hon. Gentleman's hope that we shall make as rapid progress as possible.

Talks

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his visit to Kenya.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about his talks with political parties in Kenya.

Mr. Sandys: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the statement made by my predecessor at the


end of his recent talks in Kenya. From this it will be seen that the detailed drafting of the new Constitution is now being put in hand; and preparations for elections to the Regional Assemblies and the central Legislature are going forward.

Mr. Healey: I welcome the evidence of progress, however small, contained in the previous Colonial Secretary's statement and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on assuming these heavy responsibilities. In view of the concern and uneasiness expressed in some East African newspapers at the change of responsibility for these problems, will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest possible opportunity to visit Kenya himself to assure all the communities there that there is no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy on the Colony?

Mr. Sandys: I can give that assurance straight away without going to Kenya. There is no change.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that any future constitution in Kenya will be based on Che regional system, the framework of which was decided at the recent conference? Will he bear in mind that any such system can be successful only if the regions are given a high degree of local autonomy by the central Government?

Mr. Sandys: The question of the exact balance between the centre and the regions is of cardinal importance in this matter.

The following is the statement:

The next step in the constitutional development of Kenya will be the introduction of a new constitution and the holding of nationwide elections.

The constitution will be based on the Framework agreed at the Lancaster House Conference. The only variations from this will be those required to provide for a period of self-government during which control over External Affairs, Defence and Internal Security will be reserved to the Governor. A further Conference will need to be held before inde-pence to work out any remaining details.

I believe it is desirable, in the interests of public order and of the economy, to hold the elections as soon as possible. There has now been agreement on all the necessary matters upon which the preparations for elections depend, and their timing will be determined solely by the practical work required. This involves the drawing of Regional and constituency boundaries and the registration of voters. The franchises for Central, Regional and Local Government have been agreed. It

was also agreed that Regional elections should be held first and that elections to the Upper and Lower House should follow with the minimum delay and should take place as nearly simultaneously as possible.

The Commissions charged with the responsibility for the boundaries should begin their work early next month. It is not possible to make all the necessary preparations in time to hold the elections this year, but they will take place as soon as it is physically possible to arrange them in 1963.

The further task is to complete drafting the constitution so that it will be ready to take effect as soon as the elections have been held. This involves filling in the details of the Lancaster House Framework. A great deal of this has already been done and enough decisions have been taken to enable drafting to proceed.

Certain particular points have been discussed during my visit on which, so far, there has not been complete agreement. I explained that it was my desire to see agreement reached on all outstanding points but, in any case where this could not be done, H.M.G. would have to take the necessary decision to enable constitutional drafting to completed. I explained that in the absence, therefore, of agreement on several points, I would propose to act in the following manner:—

(a) Education:

The question of secondary education was left open at Lancaster House. I am now satisfied that there is no overwhelming administrative objection to giving responsibility for secondary education to the Regions. Educational standards and certain educational institutions must remain under national control, and there are other details to be worked out but, subject to this, I would propose that secondary education should be the responsibility of the Regions.

(b) Health:

There clearly must be a division here. Public Health in general and such matters as the control of epidemics must clearly be a Central responsibility, and the Central Government must retain an over-all responsibility for general policy and the means of ensuring that this can be effectively discharged. On the other hand, there are a number of functions, e.g. clinics, that should be the responsibility of the Regions. The main outstanding point is the administration of the provincial and district hospitals. In principle, I am inclined to think that this should be the function of the Regions, but in view of the importance of maintaining the efficiency of the Medical Service, I explained that I could not make up my mind finally without further consideration of the problems involved. These must be seen against the background of considerable administrative difficulties that are. in any case, bound to rise with the implementation of the new constitution. If it appears that the needs of the health of the people demand this, I should consider that any transfer of pro-


vincial and district hospitals to the control of the Regional authorities should be deferred either temporarily or permanently.

(c) Labour:

I think it is essential that registration and control of labour should be a Central Government responsibility. The basic rights of association in trade unions will be safeguarded in the constitution. Decisions on trade union registration are taken by the Registrar and can be challenged in the courts. The employment offices throughout the country will, I believe, be better run and less liable to accusations of partiality if they are run uniformly throughout the country by the Central Government.

(d) The Public Service:

I put forward a scheme designed to meet the Lancaster House agreement that the Public Service should be independent of political control and that arrangements must be made to meet the staffing needs, both of the Central Government and the Regional authorities. In the interests of maintaining efficient administration which is of vital importance, there must, I believe, be a single career structure for the Public Service with uniform standards and agreed pension arrangements open to all recruits. At the same time, the Central and Regional governments must have servants who owe their allegiance entirely to them. I propose, therefore, examining the practical possibility of a pool of Public Servants who will be posted either to the Central Government Service or the Regional Government Service and transferable between one and the other. Recruitment to this pool, discipline, control over conditions of employment, and, in particular, protection of the Public Service against political interference will be in the hands of an independent Public Service Commission, the chairman of which might be appointed by a Council of the Judges of the Supreme Court. I propose to work out the details of this system and send them to His Excellency the Governor for consideration by the Council of Ministers in the near future.

(e) Representation of special interests:

It had been proposed that arrangements should be made for communal representation in the Legislatures during the period of self-government until independence. This proposal was unacceptable to the Council of Ministers. In these circumstances, I do not think it can be pressed, but I propose to safeguard the particularly important question of the representation of special communities at the Independence Conference by reserving the right to invite representatives from them to the Independence Conference, in addition to the members of the Legislature who will be chosen to represent the parties therein included.

(f) Nairobi:

The special position of Nairobi under the new constitution has to be worked out in more detail. On the only point of detail raised I propose that a representative of Nairobi should attend all meetings of the National Security Council but not be a member of it.

The problem of landlessness is one of the most serious and urgent facing Kenya. Her Majesty's Government consider that a substantial expansion of the present high density settlement scheme is required. I told the Kenya Government that we would be prepared to finance such an extension if they would put forward to us practicable schemes for settling 1,000,000 acres of land in the scheduled areas, predominantly mixed farming land, at an annual rate of 200,000 acres. These figures would include the acres already settled. In the last year of the operation of such a scheme, we would review it and if we are satisfied that a further scheme on these lines was necessary and desirable we would be prepared, in principle, to participate in such an extension:.

As it is essential to maintain continuity and certainty of payment in such a scheme, I have agreed with the Kenya Government that it will be the first charge on the development monies made available to Kenya over the period when the scheme is operating.

The Commission for the Northern Frontier District will soon be appointed. I should like to make it clear that the purpose of this Commission is not to recommend particular courses of action, but to inform H.M.G. about the current state of public opinion and the wishes of the people in the six districts concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Small Colonies and Protectorates

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Colonies or protectorates having populations of 25,000 or less come within the control of his Department; and how many are in size less than 152 square miles.

Mr. Sandys: The answers to the two parts of the Question are 7 and 13, respectively.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I find it quite interesting that there should be so many countries for which his Department is responsible none of which is larger than Rutland? Since we have a local inquiry this week to consider the independence of that county, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, and persuade his colleagues to bear in mind, that if there is a threat to the independence of Rutland we shall put up as big a fight as the Colonies put up when they seek their independence?

Mr. Speaker: Despite the present duties of the Minister, I do not think that they cover that field.

Mr. Sandys: I do not think it is any use comparing an English county with a Pacific island.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Bailey, Malta, Ltd.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the report of the investigation being carried out into the affairs of Bailey, Malta, Ltd.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Mr. Awbery: I thank the Minister for the brevity of his reply. Is he aware that it is over three years since Baileys took over this concern with a flourish of trumpets and that it was said that this would save the economic position in Malta? Nothing has been dome up to now. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the transition from a naval dockyard to a commercial dockyard has yet started?

Mr. Sandys: I should like to await the report, which I hope to receive in the next few weeks.

Employment

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to provide alternative employment for the men who are to be discharged from the naval base at Malta; how many now industries have been set up on the island during the past three years; and how many persons are employed in them.

Mr. Sandys: The Government of Malta are at present engaged in revising their Development Plan with particular regard to the provision of additional employment. I am informed that in the last three years 22 new industries have been started and that these are at present employing about 800 persons.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there is a deep feeling of frustration and anxiety among workers in the dockyard and that the Flag Officer recently told members of the General Workers' Union that a large number of them would be dsmissed and that this was an irrevocable decision? Are we turning the island into a distressed area? If the Government are sacking people

in the dockyard, they should not do so with the impunity that the Prime Minister sacks members of the Cabinet. We shall protest if the Government decide to do that.

Mr. Sandys: The Cabinet do not have a workers' charter. I understand that the Government of Malta are studying plans to provide alternative employment for those discharged. As soon as they are ready, I shall be happy to discuss these matters with them.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the former Prime Minister of Malta was faced with a problem such as unemployment he received considerable help from this country? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the present Prime Minister will be treated as generously in the difficulties which now face him?

Mr. Sandys: We do not discriminate between Prime Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

Independence

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what financial settlement, by way of special loans or grants, is being made to Jamaica to coincide with independence.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on 10th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Independence

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what financial settlement, by way of special loans or grants, is being made to Trinidad and Tobago to coincide with independence.

Mr. Sandys: The discussions on this matter are not yet completed.

Mr. Chapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these two islands need not only grants but access as much as possible to loans raised not merely from the British Goverrnment but on the London market? Will he give an assurance that in any decisions


taken, particularly with regard to Trinidad, an attempt will be made to make loans available particularly for a big housing drive in Trinidad, which would do more fully to stabilise the economy than any other thing that we could do at the moment?

Mr. Sandys: The Premier of Trinidad and Tobago explained to Her Majesty's Government his country's needs whilst he was here. He has now returned to Trinidad, but the discussions are continuing with the representative of the Trinidad Government in London. I am sure that the points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will feature in those discussions.

Mr. Strachey: One of the very best things which the night hon. Gentleman could do to help would be to extend the Colonial Development Corporation's operations to these newly independent territories—for example, in respect of housing—which would probably do more than anything else to ensure the continued development of these islands.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman and I are agreed on this matter. I hope to be in a position to make a statement on that subject before very long.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Constitution

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to publish the new agreement on the Constitution of Aden.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Members for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) and Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 10th July.

Mrs. Hart: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that there is a very great and very deep concern among the majority of the people of Aden about the effect of the new constitutional agreement? In view of this, would he at least undertake that before final ratification is made, and before the ending of the present period of tenure of the Legislative Council at the end of the year, he will sent a Parliamentary Commission to inquire into what is the best way of meeting the needs of the people of Aden?

Mr. Sandys: I am not so sure about a Parliamentary Commission. I think that, on the whole, if one wants to know what suits the people of a certain part of the world, it is better, perhaps, to consult the people who live there.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, during the discussions this month, that the best way to ensure political peace in Aden is to have constitutional advance and fresh elections there, before there is any question of associating Aden with the territories of the protectorates? Will he give a categorical assurance that the elections which are due, in any case, at the end of this year will not be suspended?

Mr. Sandys: I do not wish anything to be read into my answer. All I would say is that I do not think it would be useful for me to make any statement on this constitutional problem until we have had the talks that are due to take place next week.

Girls' College

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Aden Girls' College is to be reopened; and what new arrangements are proposed to avoid a recurrence of recent difficulties.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the girls' college at Aden will be reopened for the new session this year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sandys: The Aden Government announced earlier this month that the girls' college will be reopened in October. It is proposed to make some amendments to the curriculum, and to establish a parents' committee. There will also be certain staff changes.

Mr. Thomson: While welcoming the Minister's reply, may I ask whether he can give the House more information about whether the principalship of the college has now been decided? Is he aware that if the college is to open properly in October and to try to overcome the quite disastrous gap which has been created in the education of these girls, the principalship should be decided now to allow a really new start to take place?

Mr. Sandys: I fully recognise the importance of this matter, but I am sure the hon. Member will realise that in the 24 hours I have been in my new office I have not had much time to study the problems of the girls' college in Aden.

Mr. Edwards: May I say that I am particularly pleased to hear that a parents' association has been established covering the students of this school, because many of the parents have forced the girls into early marriage because of the closure of the school? I hope that this will contribute towards ending this injustice against the young girls.

Mr. Sandys: Early marriage is not always a bad thing.

Federation of South Arabia (Agreement)

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that there will not be any serious industrial unrest in the Colony of Aden as a protest against the agreement signed on 17th May between the Federation of South Arabia and the Colony of Aden; and if he is now in a position to make a statement designed to allay the suspicions regarding this agreement which are widespread among the peoples concerned.

Mr. Sandys: There are rumours that the Aden trade unions will call a strike on 23rd July as a protest against the constitutional proposals on which the Ministers of the Colony and the Federation have provisionally agreed, but which have not yet been published. A full statement will be issued after my discussions with the Aden Ministers beginning next week. Meanwhile, I hope that all concerned with reserve their judgment.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that the people of Aden Colony and many thousands in the Protectorate suspect that this secret agreement, which has never even been discussed in the Legislative Council, will halt constitutional reform in the Colony and will link the Colony with the Protectorate, which is undemocratic? Is it not important, therefore, that the secret agreement should no longer be secret and that a statement should be made to allay the

legitimate suspicions of democratic people in Aden?

Mr. Sandys: A statement will be made very shortly.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that the statements by his predecessor that what is proposed on 23rd July is an informal conference on a provisional agreement are welcome and should go a long way to allay some of the suspicions? Is he aware, therefore, that we on this side endorse what he has said in asking people to reserve their judgment and not to take hasty action until we know what proposals will come out of the constitutional conference?

Mr. Sandys: I am grateful for support from all quarters.

Industrial Relations Ordinance

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached on the future of the Aden Industrial Relations Ordinance.

Mr. Sandys: In a statement on 8th July, the Aden Government announced that they wish to review this Ordinance and propose to consult both sides of industry about it. I will, with permission, circulate a copy of this statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:
It is nearly two years since the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance came into force. The main purpose of the Ordinance was to introduce stability in industrial relations and to protect the economy from the damaging effects of frequent strikes. As a result of the Ordinance Aden has enjoyed a high standard of industrial peace. Improvements to wages and conditions of service have resulted from collective bargaining and a firm foundation has been provided for economic stability and progress. During the period the Ordinance has been in force employers and unions have successfully negotiated a number of procedural agreements providing for collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration. This very success has made it possible for Government to consider whether certain restrictive provisions in the Ordinance can be relaxed. Government, in a letter to the Aden Trades Union Congress dated 5th May, 1962, indicated its willingness to consider the possibility of suspending the Ordinance whenever local circumstances allowed of such action. It is too early yet to judge whether such circumstances exist but Government wishes to press ahead with a review of the Ordinance after obtaining the


advice of both sides of industry jointly. This can only be done effectively through the machinery provided by the Aden Joint Consultative Council, a body which Government has been endeavouring to establish for some considerable time. Feeling that the present circumstances are favourable, I will upon my return to Aden invite the Aden Trades Union Congress and certain employers and employers' organisations to nominate representatives to serve on the Aden Joint Consultative Council which will advise Government on labour policies, labour legislation and methods of improving industrial relations. One of its first tasks will be to provide Government with the advice necessary to carry out the proposed review of the provisions of the Ordinance referred to earlier in this statement.

Governor of Aden (Powers)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what powers granted by original treaties are today exercised by Her Majesty's Government with the Governor of Aden in respect of the Aden Protectorate; and how far those treaties have been subsequently extended or amended.

Mr. Sandys: Her Majesty's Government have responsibility for defence and external relations, supplemented in some of the more recent treaties by the right to give mandatory advice on matters connected with good government. In addition, the Treaty of Friendship and Protection between Britain and the Federation of South Arabia provides for shared responsibility for the internal security of the Federation. The original treaties have not been amended.

Mr. Sorensen: Has any such mandatory advice been given to the rulers of the Protectorates regarding the need to introduce at least some measure of de-mocratisation? If that has not been done, and in any case if it has been done, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government intend to give such mandatory advice to the rulers in the future?

Mr. Sandys: In internal affairs these are self-governing friendly States, and it is not our intention, unless there are very special circumstances, to interfere in any way in their traditional institutions.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if we have power and responsibility in respect of giving mandatory advice and wish to encourage closer association between the Protectorates and the Colony, there

is an obligation upon Her Majesty's Government at least to give such advice as I have mentioned?

Mr. Sandys: The fact that one has power does not necessarily mean that it is always desirable or right to exercise it.

Population

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present estimated population in Aden Colony of Aden Arabs, Protectorate Arabs, Yemeni Arabs, Somalis, Jews, British and other Europeans, respectively; by what means inclusion in these categories was determined at the last census and in later estimates; what is the estimated number or percentage of those who evaded registration at the last census; approximately how many Yemenis enter and leave the Colony annually; and what are the regulations controlling immigration into the Colony.

Mr. Sandys: Since the answer is lengthy and includes a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: While I appreciate the reason for that answer, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that it is imperative to try to define who are Adenese, and that no constitutional development can take place unless there is a clear definition of who are Adenese, who are Yemeni and who are the others resident in the country but are not entitled to the franchise?

Mr. Sandys: That is not always easy to establish.

Following is the answer:

The present population of Aden Colony is roughly estimated as follows:—

Aden Arabs
60,000


Protectorate Arabs
35,000


Yemeni Arabs
80,000


Other Arabs
5,000


Somalis
15,000


Indians and Pakistanis
20,000


Jews
800


British Europeans (excluding the Armed Forces)
4,500


Other Europeans
700



221,000

Inclusion in these categories at the last census in 1955 was by means of individual questions by enumerators. The categories were determined primarily, but not entirely, by the


country of birth. Later figures are rough estimates based upon general evidence.

The number of those who evaded registration at the last census may have been anything up to 10 per cent. but there is no basis upon which an accurate estimate can be formed.

No reliable figures are available to show how many Yemenis enter and leave the Colony annually, because it is not practicable to con-trol movements across the land boundary of the Colony. It is believed that the number entering the Colony somewhat exceeds the number of those leaving.

Immigration into the Colony is governed by the Immigration Ordinance, 1955, as amended by Ordinances Nos. 3 and 10 of 1960.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Lost Counties

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now set a maximum as well as a minimum period for the holding of a referendum on the future of the two lost counties in the Buganda-Bunyoro dispute, recommended by the Molson Commission to be transferred to Bunyoro.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has sent to a letter to him, dated 5th July, from the Chairman of the Bunyoro Constitutional Committee, pressing him to include in the Uganda independence Constitution a maximum as well as a minimum period for the holding of a referendum on the future of the two lost counties in the Buganda-Bunyoro dispute which were recommended by the Molson Commission to be transferred to Bunyoro.

Mr. Sandys: The Uganda Government will have the responsibility for establishing conditions in which the people can express their opinion without fear of violence or intimidation. That is why it was thought right to leave them the right to decide when the referendum can properly be held. I am replying to the Chairman of the Bunyoro Constitutional Committee accordingly.

Mr. Bennett: If the argument is, as I can understand it might be, that it is wrong to impose terms on a country that has achieved independence on how to conduct elections or, for that matter, a plebiscite, can the Secretary of State say why it is wrong to fix a maximum term, when it is apparently quite in order to tell the future independent Uganda Government that it cannot hold a

referendum for two years after independence; in other words, to set a minimum term? If the Government are prepared to put that into the declaration, why cannot they put it in as regards the maximum? [Interruption.] I do not blame my right hon. Friend for having my words crowded out by a very much more important incident —my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) coming into the Chamber. If there is no lack of intention by Mr. Obote's Central Government to hold a plebiscite, can the Secretary of State give any con-cievable reason why he should not be prepared to agree that with Her Majesty Government?

Mr. Sandys: Of course, my predecessor would have liked to have been able to persuade both sides to accept the recommendations of the Molson Commission, which were of a different nature, but in view of the impossibility of achieving agreement, he thought it best to impose the compromise which we are now operating. All I can say is that I am not prepared to give any promise to reopen this very prickly question.

Mr. Thomson: Would the Minister seriously consider having further consultations with Mr. Obote, the Prime Minister of Uganda, before he finally sends his reply to Bunyoro? As he knows, there are certain things which it is possible for a colonial Power to do while it still has responsibility, which would be very difficult for the Prime Minister of Uganda, with the best will in the world, to do? Is he aware that the best way to achieve peace and restraint in Bunyoro, which we all hope for during the years that lie immediately ahead, would be by giving a considerable reassurance that at some point there is at least the certainty of a referendum and self-determination?

Mr. Sandys: I think we must trust the new central Government to act with responsibility and impartiality.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASUTOLAND

Constitution

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made towards the revision of the Constitution in Basutoland.

Mr. Sandys: I understand that the Constitutional Commission appointed by the Paramount Chief has held a number of meetings. It has also received a large number of memoranda from members of the public, which it is now studying.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Commission is likely to report, and will he agree that the constitutional position of the Paramount Chief is anomalous? Will he give consideration to making him Head of State in Basutoland, subject to the High Commissioner, while Basutoland is still a dependent territory?

Mr. Sandys: I am afraid that I cannot say when I am to receive this report. It first has to be debated by the Basuto National Council before it is sent to me, and, therefore, the timetable is not in my hands. In regard to the position of the Paramount Chief, and whether or not he should be regarded as Head of State, that is one of the questions which was specifically referred to the Commission for consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Knitwear Industries (Wages)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if there is a fair wages clause operating in the knitwear industries in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir. Fair wages clauses, of course, apply only to Government contracts.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that the prices of these commodities from Hong Kong are doing irreparable damage to the industry in Scotland, and that only last week an industry in my own constituency closed down, the main cause being due to the prices of these commodities from Hong Kong? Is there not something that could be done at least to protect our own domestic trade and the employment of our own people against the possibility of sweated labour conditions in Hong Kong?

Mr. Sandys: Of course, the level of wages in Hong Kong is different from the level of wages in the hon. Member's constituency, but, in regard to the knitwear industry, so far as I am able to

ascertain, the level of wages in that industry is generally in line with the level of wages in other industries in Hong Kong.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman intending to convey to the House that wages and conditions of labour in Hong Kong are such as to afford fair rather than unfair competition with the same goods produced under Lancashire's wages and conditions? If not, will he bear in mind that the citizens of Her Majesty living in Lancashire ought to receive at least as much consideration from the Government as those who live in Hong Kong?

Mr. Sandys: On other occasions, the hon. Gentleman is very anxious to appear as the champion of the trading interests of the Commonwealth and Colonies. On this occasion, he takes a different line. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Ellis Smith: Slave labour in Hong Kong.

Mr. Sandys: It is because of the difference in the wage rates and other conditions that we have asked Hong Kong, as well as India and Pakistan, to accept voluntary restrictions upon their exports of textiles, with a view to protecting the position of Lancashire.

Mr. Eden: Is it not clear that many of the working conditions of these factories in Hong Kong would stand up to comparison with working conditions obtaining in this country? Is it not also a fact that although the standard of wages may be low by comparison with industry in this country, the people working in Hong Kong are grateful for whatever they can get in this respect, because it means a very great deal to them?

Mr. Sandys: I do not propose to make any invidious comparisons.

Schools

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the rapidly increasing population of Hong Kong, how many full-sized schools of all kinds the Colony's Government have built since 1955; at what rate new Government or Government-subsidised schools are being opened; and at what rate Government and privately-owned schools together are being opened.

Mr. Sandys: Since 1955, the Government of Hong Kong has itself built 64 schools and has subsidised 116 others. On the average, one new school, built or subsidised by the Government, is opened every tern days; or one every four days if privately-owned schools are included.

Mr. Royle: Does any other Colony have as good a record as this? Will my right hon. Friend give greater publicity to the Hong Kong Government's magnificent efforts both in housing and education?

Mr. Sandys: I am sure the whole House will agree that the Government of Hong Kong are to be congratulated on the unrelenting efforts they have made to grapple with the stupendous problem of the influx of refugees and immigrants from Communist China.

Industrial Development

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many factories and workshops were established in Hong Kong, and what was the total labour force in 1948 and 1961; and what percentage of the present population of 3 million is now directly or indirectly dependent on industry.

Mr. Sandys: There were about 1,100 registrable factories and workshops in 1948 and about 6,000 in 1961. The total labour force is now about 1,200,000. The figure for 1948 is not available. The answer to the last part of the Question is about 54 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that because Hong Kong does not have a domestic market it is very necessary for her to export? Will he discuss with the United States Government easement of American restrictions upon the import of goods from Hong Kong?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.

Immigrants

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what contribution interested Governments can make towards the cost of the infrastructure needed to support new immigrants and excess population in Hong Kong, in view of the recent statement in regard to such contributions and the Hong Kong Gov-

ernment's achievement in building roads, housing, hospitals and clinics over the past seven years without outside assistance.

Mr. Sandys: As indicated in the statement to which my hon. Friend refers, the Government of Hong Kong have invited friendly and interested Governments to give financial assistance for the provision of a wide range of public services.
The United States Government have recently given $250,000 for a new workshop at the Hong Kong Technical College. They have also offered to admit some 5,000 Chinese families into the United States. Canada has offered to admit 100 Chinese families and to provide considerable quantities of foodstuffs.

Mr. Royle: In view of the Hong Kong Government's fine achievements, will my right hon. Friend press Hong Kong's claims for special treatment in the current negotiations with the E.E.C. countries as a practical and effective gesture of international assistance?

Mr. Sandys: In these negotiations we are watching very closely the special interests of Hong Kong.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

Morse Commission

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent Her Majesty's Government have now implemented the recommendations of the Morse Commission on the High Commission Territories in Southern Africa.

Mr. Sandys: As the House has already been informed, additional amounts of about £1 million and £180,000 have been made available for carrying out proposals made in the Morse Report. A further sum of £1 million has been provided for road improvements in Swaziland by the International Development Association, which also has under consideration similar applications from the other two Territories. In preparing their development plans, the Governments of the three territories are, of course, taking full account of the recommendations of the Commission.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right ban. Gentleman satisfied that enough is being done to help these territories? With regard to the amount of capital and the time in which it is to be spent, did not the Morse Commission emphasise that large-scale development would be required quickly, and is it not doubly important now that South Africa has left the Commonwealth that these territories should not be so dependent upon that country but should move quickly forward to an independent economic basis of their own?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir; we fully recognise the importance of this matter. Naturally, we should like to do more, and that applies to many other countries which seek assistance from us, but there are limits to the amount of money which we can make available. I would draw attention to the fact that the Morse Commission itself fully recognised that its recommendations could not be put into effect overnight and would have to be introduced over a period of years.

Mr. Strachey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one thing that he could do with Swaziland at any rate is to bring its sugar fully back into the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and not buy it at a cut price, as it is being bought today?

NUCLEAR TESTS

Ql. Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if he has studied the recent reports of the Atomic Energy Authority, working in conjunction with United States scientists, on seismological detection of underground explosions, particularly on the progress in detection and recognition of small explosions; and to what extent this will modify the Western Powers' approach toward a nuclear test ban agreement.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the meetings of the United States and British scientific teams in relation to the detection of underground tests.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As I explained last Thursday in the course of my reply to Questions by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)

and Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), the meeting last week was one of a series of informal exchanges which take place from time to time between British and American scientists. On this occasion the meeting took place shortly after an interesting announcement by the American Department of Defense. This reported preliminary conclusions and observations on new information which had become available from developments in seismic techniques and the study of earthquake records.
These findings were discussed by the scientists. They attached great significance to the information that had emerged from studies of the comparative magnitudes of the various seismic waves from underground nuclear explosions and eathquakes. This may mean that fewer earthquakes than has hitherto appeared likely could be mistaken for underground explosions. The significance of this possible result combined with improvements in relative seismic detection techniques is now being determined in relation to the problem of on-site verification in a possible nuclear test ban treaty, but it would be premature to forecast either as a result of this work or of that by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority what changes in the West's position may be possible.
In all this work, British and American scientists will continue to work in close collaboration.

Mr. Mason: Would it not appear that the Press also had seismological detectors in Whitehall last week in order to assess the rumblings that were taking place there? Might I also point out that we recognise that the Prime Minister is one of the members on the Government Front Bench who is holding down his own position? As a lot of progress has been made in the detection of underground tests and in detection between tests and earthquake tremors, might not progress be made at Geneva now towards a satisfactory agreement on the banning of tests without even having control posts inside the Soviet Union? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it appears from Press reports that Her Majesty's Government are not as enthusiastic about getting a test agreement as the United States Government? Is this true?

The Prime Minister: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is, of course, quite untrue. We have been trying our best for this, and our scientists have made very big contributions to the study of the problem throughout. At present the matter of trying to work out precisely the meaning of these new discoveries is still proceeding, and I would hope that as a result we should then be able to consider what modifications in our position we could make with a view to putting forward some fresh proposal. We have made many proposals, and we hope to make one which ultimately may lead to the banning of tests.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the question of the detection and verification of underground tests the main obstacle to the achievement of a nuclear test ban agreement? As the Geneva Conference has resumed its deliberations, 'has it not became a matter of some urgency to decide whether or not it is scientifically possible to detect underground tests? Will not the Prime Minister take some further step to bring about a solution of the problem, for example, by proposing a meeting between the scientists of the United States and the United Kingdom and those of the Soviet Union, with a view to clearing the decks for this problem?

The Prime Minister: That last proposal is exactly the one we made some months ago which up to now has been refused. It is well worth considering whether it could be revived. We are in close discussion on this matter with our allies, the United States, and I hope that we may be able to make some advance.

Mr. H. Wilson: With regard to underground explosions which still require the attention of seismologists, would the hon. Gentleman recall that last week when he made his answer to my right hon. Friend we asked him whether, as this was not just an ordinary routine meeting but was of great importance, he would consider publishing a White Paper with the conclusions of this meeting as recorded by the American and British scientists? In view of the importance of this to the next phase of the negotiations for a test ban, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to publish in a White Paper the conclusions of this meeting

instead of relying on the rather general statement he has made this afternoon?

The Prime Minister: I have considered that, but I am not sure that it would be the most rapid method of advancing the negotiations.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not this proposal about detection offer by far the best opportunity of reaching a solution, or at any rate a partial solution, of this very vexed problem? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reports which appeared in several newspapers this morning that conversations to this effect, albeit of an informal character, have already taken place in Geneva, and will he encourage the British delegate there—I understand that it is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—to express, so far as is practicable, a conciliatory opinion?

The Prime Minister: I think that what we all hope to get is a successful negotiation. I hope the House will feel that we have tried to negotiate in the way most likely to get results. I am not able to say today how far the possibility of not having to have the inspection system on Russian soil alters the question whether certain on-site inspections will still be required as part of any treaty. All this is being carefully examined, and we hope to make progress.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As the United States report of latest developments has been made available to the Committee of 18 in Geneva, will the right hon. Gentleman make it available to Members of this House as well?

The Prime Minister: I have already placed in the Library a copy of the American Defense Department's statement.

EUROPEAN POLITICAL UNION

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from the President of France or the Chancellor of the West German Republic acquainting him of their decision to hold early discussions on the creation of a European political union; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister: We have been given a full account by the French and


German Governments of the conclusions reached in the talks between President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer, including their decision to propose a meeting of the Six Heads of Government later this year.

Mr. Turton: Is it not an odd way of treating us in the course of the negotiations? Will my right hon. Friend make it quite plain to the Chancellor and to the President that Britain, whatever might be the outcome of the negotiations on the Common Market, will not contemplate entering into a European political union?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that this is perfectly correct. We are discussing the question of entering into the Common Market. My right hon. Friend knows that there is no reason why the Governments of the Community should not also discuss political questions, and they are keeping us fully informed of what they are doing.

Mr. Gaitskell: What we are concerned with, and what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is concerned with, is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government at this time to any question of our entering into a political union in Europe. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to clarify the position. Will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of accepting, prior to any possible entry into the Common Market, any commitment whatever towards political union in Europe other than that involved in the general statement in the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome?

The Prime Minister: I think that that does not possibly arise. Until we have completed negotiations with the Common Market, this does not arise. But what the other Governments do we cannot prevent them doing. They have a right to do it. What they do is, with great courtesy, to keep us informed of their discussions.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have asked that they should take part in these political negotiations? If that is the case, should not the Prime Minister clarify the attitude of the Government in any such negotiations? May I repeat the question that I put to him? Will he

confirm that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of entering into any commitment of a political character other than that involved in the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome, before any possible entry by Britain into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: That would be quite impossible, because these negotiations are not taking place at the same time and will probably not even reach any further stage until later in the year. What we have asked is to be fully informed and formally consulted about what they may be doing, but that is a separate problem from that of the Community which we are now discussing.

Mr. Longden: May I take this opportunity first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having kept his head while all about him were losing theirs— [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House enjoys its hilarities but it also enjoys getting through some Questions, and we cannot do both at the same time.

Mr. Longden: —and blaming it on him. Secondly, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will agree that, whether or not this country enters the Common Market, it can only be a good thing for the Continent of Western Europe and the whole of the free world if Western Europe integrates politically as strongly and as much as possible?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part, those are rather morbid allusions. With regard to the second part, the phrases "political union" and "political combination" are very vague. We have to see what we have to consider and then we can make up our minds. What we are doing is to negotiate for the Common Market. When we see what happens there we can see whether there is any further degree of co-operation at which we wish to aim.

Mr. Grimond: May I in turn congratulate the Prime Minister on the first demonstration of support that he has received from his back benches? Is not the night hon. Gentleman being rather disingenuous about this matter? Is not he aware that every Continental refers to the Common Market as being as much a political as an economic movement?


Is it not time that the people of this country ware told whether the Government accept that if we go into the Common Market it has great political implications and is a step towards the political] unity of Europe which cannot be avoided?

The Prime Minister: At the risk of creating disunion among the crowded back benches of the right hon. Gentleman, I say that from the first study of the discussions that we have had here it has always been clear that there were political implications in the unity of Europe through the Common Market, but we would have to judge how far we could take it step by step.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is not the Leader of the Opposition under a complete delusion in thinking that any British Government can enter into any commitment without the consent of Parliament?

Mr. H. Wilson: With regard to my right hon. Friend's two Questions, is the Prime Minister aware that he is no longer in a position to go on fluffing and evading this issue, and that it is of paramount importance that we know now What has been said in Brussels on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? Since it is clear that those who are negotiating with us think that Britain recognises that to sign the Treaty of Rome involves a federal commitment, will the right hon. Gentleman now make it crystal clear that all we have been negotiating about is the Treaty of Rome, and that we are looking at that on its merits, in economic and similar terms, and that if we go in on economic terms we are not in any way committed to further progress towards a federal set-up in Europe? Will the right hon. Gentle-roan make that clear?

The Prime Minister: I think that it was made abundantly clear by the Head of the French Government, who is strongly opposed to any federal solution.

UNITED NATIONS (DEVELOPMENT DECADE)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Prime Minister if he will raise the question of the United Nations Development Decade at the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in September and suggest that

the conference issues a declaration pledging all the Common-wealth countries to support the objectives of the Development Decade.

The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 19th April, the main purpose of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting in September will be to discuss the Common Market, but we shall, of course, make our normal review of world affairs. The detailed scope of our discussions is for the Prime Ministers themselves to decide collectively, and I would not wish to undertake at this stage to raise any particular subjects.

Mr. Prentice: I appreciate what the Prime Minister has just said, but will he bear in mind the possibility of issuing a declaration, rather as he did after the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, on the subject of disarmament? Does 'he agree that it is essential to give every possible thrust to the idea of a Development Decade and to see that it becomes not just a series of pious hopes but a real advance in the standards of developing countries?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I have every sympathy with the hon. Member's idea. But he must not underrate the enormous contributions which this country is making and is going on making towards the purpose that he has in mind. What I want to make clear is that I do not lay down the agenda, but that it is agreed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Sir C.Osborne: In view of the fact that many of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be coming from countries with appalling poverty and will, therefore, be coming here rightly expecting economic aid for their people, and bearing in mind that the income per capita in India is only £24 a year and in Pakistan £19 a year compared with our £387 a year, will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to both sides of the House that if we are really going to help the under-developed countries it will involve big sacrifices at home?

The Prime Minister: The terrible gulf between the rich and the poor countries is one of the problems of the world, and it is best met by the developed countries trying to increase their wealth and effort and out of their superfluity helping the under-developed countries.

Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that the main source of capital for developing countries is the money they earn by selling their exports to the developed countries, can the Prime Minister assure the House that at the Prime Ministers' Conference he will insist that Britain will not join the Common Market unless the enlarged Common Market affords to the developing countries of the Commonwealth at least a prospect of a steadily expanding market for their exports?

The Prime Minister: The object of the Community is to have an expansion of wealth and to be an outward-looking and expanding Community.

PUBLIC SERVICES, OVERSEAS SERVICES AND ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir A. V. HARVEY: TO ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet decided to increase the pensions of retired members of the public services, the Armed Forces and the overseas services.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter): With permission, I should now like to answer Question 52.
The Government propose to introduce early next Session a Pensions (Increase) Bill to give help to public service pensioners. Comparable benefits will be provided for Regular pensioners of the Armed Forces, including their widows, by Prerogative Instruments.
The pensions of many of the public service pensioners are paid from local government sources, and, therefore, the Government intend to enter into consultation with representatives of the local authorities on the local government aspects of the proposed Bill.
The House is also aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation has appointed a working party to examine the problem of overseas pensioners whose pensions are not being adequately supplemented by the former employing Governments. The Government hope to receive the report of the working party during the Recess,

and there will be opportunity to include provision in the forthcoming Bill.

Sir A. V. Harvey: First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved appointment? Will he accept the thanks of those concerned for this hopeful gesture? At the same time, will he bear in mind that the widows referred to are in a desperate plight today, and that if they have to wait nine or ten months it could be very serious? Will he consult the Leader of the House, to see whether the legislation concerned can be given the highest priority for next Session? Finally, will he pass on the thanks of a number of us to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former Minister of Defence for the part they have played in bringing this about?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall have great pleasure in passing on to my right hon. Friends the generous things that my hon. Friend has said about them.
As I said in my original Answer, we propose to introduce the Bill early next Session. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard what my hon. Friend has said about it. We are anxious to introduce the Bill as soon as is practicable.

Mr. Houghton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that announcement, but what do the Government propose to do? That is the vital question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pensions in the public sector that were granted ten years ago are now between 33 per cent. and 48 per cant. below those currently granted for comparable grades of service; that the pensions granted as recently as 1958 axe between 16 per cent. and 25 per cent. below the current level of pensions; and that even those granted in 1959 are between 7 per cent. and 17 per cent. below the current level? What do the Government propose to do to alleviate the position? The House is entitled to know something about what the Government have in mind before bestowing fulsome praise upon previous Ministers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that I can reasonably be called upon to anticipate the details of the Bill—the more so because, as I said in my original Answer, a part of the cost of such Measures falls upon local authorities, as


the horn. Member knows. There has been legitimate complaint, in respect of earlier Bills, that consultation has not taken place before the Government have announced their decisions. We are proposing to use some of the period between now and the next Session for those consultations.

Dame Irene Ward: I should like to associate myself with the thanks expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) to the ex-Chancellor and those associated with him. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that when this long-delayed Bill comes forward its long-delayed provisions in respect of these pensioners will be generous?
Secondly, when my right hon. Friend is having consultations with local authorities, will he let the gas and electricity industries, the railway super-annuitants and the Transport Commission know what is happening? The people concerned also deserve well of the country. Let us have a really generous Bill on this occasion, so that we shall not feel as ashamed as we have hitherto about the Government's treatment of some of these people.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Workers in the nationalised industries have not been covered by the Pensions (Increase) Measures relating to public servants, but my right hon. Friends who are concerned, and the industries they supervise, will know of the Government's decision and will have it in mind. As for the size and scale of the Bill, I must ask my hon. Friend to await its presentation. It is certainly intended that, overall, it should be not less generous than the Measure introduced in 1959.

Mr. Wade: Will the increases apply to all war widows? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, some have received no benefit from the increases given in recent years. Secondly, will unestablished civil servants be affected by the increases? Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are great discrepancies between pensioners of all kinds who retired a number of years ago and those who retired more recently? Will he accept the principle of a periodic review, to bring these matters to light,

instead of having to wait for months and months of pressure and protest before doing anything?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is just because public servants who retire at different dates have different rates of pension that a Measure of the kind that I have indicated it is our intention to introduce is inevitably a little complicated. As for war widows, I think that in some measure the hon. Member misunderstood my statement. My statement relates to the professional or occupational pensions of retired Regular members of the Armed Forces and their widows. In the strict sense, war widows are dealt with quite separately under the Royal Warrant by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that Colonial Service pensioners, overseas Civil Service pensioners and Sudanese pensioners will be treated as generously as public service pensioners who draw their pensions directly from this country?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Technical Co-operation some weeks ago set up a working party to work out the incredibly complex details of this measure. It is certainly our intention to deal fairly with these people.

Mr. Strachey: May we have an assurance from the Minister, at any rate with regard to overseas pensions, that this working party is not merely to look at the complications of the matter? May we have an assurance that the pensioners will be generously treated and that the treatment accorded to them will be in line with the increases made at home?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite impossible to tell the right hon. Gentleman in advance of the report of the working party exactly what conclusion will be arrived at. I repeat the assurance which I gave a moment or two ago, that we intend to deal fairly by these people.

Mr. Paget: May we take it that the Bill will be based on the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, and in particular, regarding


Service pensions, that the principle of the same pension for the same service, wherever it was rendered, will be applicable?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman goes a very long way. Without studying the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, I cannot assent to such proposals, even from so inspired a source.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Minister confirm that his statement covers the Sudan Government pensioners as well?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They are covered by the working party to which I referred.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a matter of very wide interest, but we must get on.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Thomas George Bradley, esquire, for Leicester, North-East.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause (Extension of power to authorise compulsory purchase of land for off-street parking) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Ernest Marples.—[Mr Hay.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF POWER TO AUTHORISE COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND FOR OFF-STREET PARKING.)

The following provisions relating to the compulsory purchase of land for the provision of parking places under section eighty-one of the principal Act, that is to say, subsection (11) of that section and subsections (8) and (9) of section thirteen of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, shall have effect as it the references therein to the said section eighty-one included references to paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of the said section thirteen (which enables a local authority to let land for the provision of parking places).—[Mr. Hay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause has been tabled as a result of a brief discussion in the Standing Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) moved a new Clause which, basically, would have had a similar effect.
By the Clause we seek to give to local authorities the power to acquire, by compulsory purchase, land which they do not intend to use themselves for the purpose of providing car parks. In a number of places throughout the country we have found that such compulsory purchase powers would be an extremely useful instrument for local authorities who wish to provide, or attend to the provision of, car parking facilities, but who are unable themselves to undertake that


type of development. Such local authorities would have in mind that after the land had been compulsorily purchased they would allow others to provide what we call mixed development, that is to say, shops, offices, or other types of development in addition to a car park.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans raised a very important point and I am delighted to have been able to meet the suggestion he made. The Clause is fairly straightforward in its technical details and I assure the Committee that it is intended to (fulfil the purpose which I have mentioned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO OFFENCES IN SCOTLAND.)

As respects offences committed after the commencement of this Act, for sections two hundred and forty and two hundred and forty-six of the principal Act there shall be substituted the sections set out in the Schedule (Offences in Scotland) to this Act.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Perhaps it would be convenient, with this Motion, to consider the other Amendments on the Notice Paper which form part of the same operation. There is the Amendment on page 22, line 29 to leave out Clause 37. There is the new Schedule which replaces the old Clause and the consequential Amendments to the Fourth Schedule in lines 9 and 24.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Yes, if that be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Brooman-White: During the Committee stage proceedings the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) suggested that it would assist those who may have to operate this

Measure in future if the Amendments made by Clause 37 were written out. The Lord Advocate undertook to consider this and these provisions are the result of that consideration. The new Clause and the relative new Schedule rewrite Sections 240 and 246 of the 1960 Act as amended. Apart from presentation there is no difference between these Amendments and the present Clause 37 which they replace. We hope that this will 'be a more convenient way of presenting the matter.

Mr. Thomas Steele: We are grateful for that explanation. The explanation given in the Committee stage proceedings was not satisfactory. It has been helpful to have a legal mind considering an interpretation. The Government have made the Bill much more intelligible, and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) I should like to thank the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(REGULATION OF MOTORING EVENTS ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.)

(1) A person who, after such day as the appropriate Minister may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, promotes or takes part in a competition or trial (other than a race or trial of speed) involving the use of motor vehicles on a public highway shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds unless the competition or trial is authorised, and is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed, by or under regulations under this section.

(2) The appropriate Minister may by regulations authorise, or provide for authorising, the holding of such competitions and trials as aforesaid, either generally, or as regards any area, or as regards any class or description of competition or trial or any particular competition or trial, subject to such conditions, including conditions requiring the payment of fees, as may be imposed by or under the regulations.

(3) Regulations under this section may—

(a) prescribe the procedure to be followed, and the particulars to be given, in connection with applications for authorisation under the regulations; and
(b) make different provision for different classes or descriptions of competition or trial.—[Mr. Hay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is a result of a discussion in the Standing Committee and deals with the difficult problem of motor rallies. Hon. Members who took part in the debates in Committee will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), although not a member of the Committee, tabled, with other hon. Members, a new Clause with the intention of giving the Minister regulatory powers in respect of motor rallies, treasure hunts and similar motoring activities.
We were able to agree that something of this kind ought to be done, and this Clause is the result of our deliberations. I am most obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for having raised the matter and gone to a great deal of personal trouble in negotiation to 'try to reach an agreed solution.
As the House will see, the Clause makes it an offence, subject to a maximum fine of £50, to promote or take part in a competition or trial which involves the use of motor vehicles on a public highway unless the event is authorised in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate Minister. The appropriate Minister would be, in England and Wales, the Minister of Transport, and, in Scotland, the Secretary of State. The regulations would specify the conditions for holding authorised events, or by authorising without conditions they could exclude any type of event or events in particular areas from the provisions of subsection (1) of the Clause.
The Minister could by regulation delegate to any particular body he thought appropriate powers given him by the Clause for authorising events, and he could enable the authorising body to charge fees as a condition of grant of an authority. Unlike the new Clause we had before us in Standing Committee, this new Clause does not provide for setting up a motor sport advisory committee. That was the recommendation which emerged from the negotiations which were held by a number of interested parties some months ago, but we came to the conclusion that a statutory committee for this purpose would be far too cumbersome.
However, we intend to set up an advisory committee which will be repre-

sentative of all the interested parties. The job of that body will be to advise the Minister on what types of events should be allowed and subject to what sort of conditions, for example, as to hours, routes, and so on. Since powers to authorise events will be exercised by regulations, the provisions of Section 260 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, will give sufficient safeguards for consultation with all interested parties before regulations are actually made.
We are taking powers to charge fees, as I indicated in Standing Committee we would be obliged to do, because we do not think it right that any extra cost arising from the administration of a system of authorising motor rallies, which are a purely private pleasure, should fall on the taxpayer. We intend that such control should be self-financing. In this, I am sure that we shall have the support of hon. Members.
I do not want to say anything rude about motor rallies. I am sure that they serve an extremely useful purpose. They provide a great deal of pleasure, and, indeed, instruction, to many people, but there is no doubt that over recent years they have begun to get a little out of hand. We think that the time has come to regulate the matter and that is the purpose of this Clause.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I, first, congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on surviving the holocaust which has recently taken place? I also express the surprise, which is shared by a number of my colleagues who served on the two Standing Committees on transport matters this Session, that in the reshuffle he has not received the promotion which we think he deserves, in comparison with his colleagues. We are, however, pleased to have him still with us on transport matters, because he has always adopted a very reasonable attitude and made himself most agreeable to hon. Members on this side of the House, even when he has disagreed with our proposals.
We all agree with, and I am glad that the Government have accepted, the view that motor rallies, while possibly desirable and serving some useful purpose, should be regulated. They were causing an immense amount of inconvenience—that may not be a strong


enough word—to large numbers of people. Therefore, we are glad that the Government have proposed this Clause. We hope that it will put it Into operation very soon.
I should have preferred the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us a little more about how the Minister is to operate the Clause. I assume that regulations will not be made until the advisory committee has sat and reported to him. There are a large number of people who suffer distress through motor ralllies and a large number of bodies which ought to be consulted. Presumably the intention is that the advisory committee should be representative of, or should consult, local authority associations and perhaps chief constables. Is it proposed that the regulations will say that before any rally is hold the local authorities in the area shall he consulted?
What is the intention about the Minister giving his authority to some other bodies to carry out the regulations he proposes to put forward? It has been suggested that the appropriate body to whom these powers should be delegated is the R.A.C., or perhaps the A.A. I do not think that anyone would object to that, but we would like to be clear that the responsibility will rest with the Minister. Whatever powers of administration he may delegate, if there is public discontent about the way in which regulations are being operated we want to be able to raise the matter in the House, question the Minister about it, and the Minister to be able to alter decisions made by the R.A.C. or whatever body may be responsible. It should be told, if necessary, that it is interpreting the regulations in a way which is not acceptable to Parliament.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that that is so and to give us any further details about the type of regulations which are contemplated. Is it suggested, for example, that if there are to be might rallies there will not be more than one in a year or in six months in a particular area? I assume that there are to be might rallies. I understand that most of the rallies now take place at might. Although we know that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be

specific on these points until he has the views of the advisory committee before him, could he tall us the general type of thing that he has in mind? That would relieve the anxiety of many people who have suffered grievously through these rallies until now.

Sir Richard Nugent: I wish to thank the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for putting this new Clause on the Notice Paper. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary rightly said, this is the consummation of several years' work, which I started when I was in his position at the Ministry, to try to deal with motor rallies. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) welcome the principle of the Clause, because I am certain that it is right for Parliament to establish some control in this matter.
I dare say that other right hon. and hon. Members, like myself, have received a pamphlet from the Noise Abatement Society. On its front page it says, "Ban all night rallies". In some parts of the country, especially in the Home Counties, public opinion is getting very worried about rallies, especially those held at night. Although my right hon. Friend the Minister can deal only with the road safety aspect of this matter and the basis of the complaint is on amenity grounds when, because of noise, conditions at night are made like those of Bedlam, there is an element of danger. When residents go out of their houses and sit in the road to block the progress of a rally, this matter can be considered as one affecting road safety in every sense of the word.
For some time my feeling has been that motor rallies, both at night and by day, comprise something which has good in it. It is a recreational activity, but it has national and international importance as a matter of prestige. Therefore, it is something which should not be prevented, but it should be regulated so that it does not seriously interfere with the lives of people. In my constituency there is a lane called Thorncombe Street. The Minister has often walked down it. I hope he has not done so when rallies have been going on, for it would not be very safe to do so then. That lane is only 8 ft. wide in places. These rallies go round Thorncombe


Street at least twice every week-end and about every other week-end there is a night rally as well. It has caused Bedlam for people who live on that road.
4.0 p.m.
This is typical of what is happening in the Farnham and Horsham constituencies and elsewhere in the Home Counties. It has become a serious nuisance and can cause a great deal of danger. Some of these rallies run 50 or 100 cars which, whizzing round the country lanes on Sunday afternoons, can be extremely dangerous. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is dealing with a matter that needs to be dealt with and I warmly thank him for coming forward with this new Clause.
The Clause is not on quite the same lines as one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), in the Standing Committee, but I do not find anything to criticise in setting up an advisory committee. I think that it is perfectly adequate. A national committee is needed which will bring all the interests together to make sure that the administration of the regulations proceeds in a satisfactory way.
I would add a word about the position of the R.A.C., in which I should declare a personal interest as a member of its committee. I have found it extremely helpful because its members really are the professionals in this matter. It has 600 or 700 clubs affiliated to it. They are allowed to have about four rallies each year and they must have a police certificate for the route that they are going over. Thorncombe Street, which I have just mentioned, is banned to them as being an unsuitable road. They have conditions to ensure that these rallies are conducted in a reasonable way without interfering with the safety or lives of people.
Because the R.A.C. has a lot of experience it obviously could be a help to my right hon. Friend in evolving the regulations which would deal with this very difficult matter. Here we are dealing with the use of the highway which it is everybody's right to use and one has to be extremely careful in regulating or restricting its use in any way.
In connection with the earlier proposal, I considered that the County Councils' Association was the body to prohibit the use of narrow lanes for the purposes of rallies, but I am sure that this approach is much better: to set up some kind of registration system which will lay down regulations that have to be conformed to. Whether or not the R.A.C. can help my right hon. Friend in the future administration of the regulations is, of course, a matter for him and Parliament to decide in the terms of the regulations. All the R.A.C. and A.C.U. can do is to place their experience and expert resources at the disposal of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that that could be helpful and would make the new Clause and the proposed new regulations work in a satisfactory and reasonable way.
I conclude by thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary very much for proceeding in what I am sure is a very sensible way of dealing with this matter. I hope that the House will agree to the new Clause and that we shall soon have regulations put into action.

Mr. Steele: There are two points which I wish to raise in connection with the procedure to be followed under subsection (3) of the new Clause about particulars to be given.
I had great pleasure in attending some of these treasure hunt rallies. They are a form of amusement and pleasure and very entertaining. But I have found on occasions that those who are responsible for arranging them have not taken into account some of the problems which arise in the course of a run. Quite recently, I took part in one. There was a clue which meant, unfortunately, that many of the competitors were knocking at a door and asking certain questions. These arose out of the name of a gentleman who had died quite recently, and it was most unfortunate. The officials of the rally had to apologise most profusely for what had happened.
I can say that this is not an isolated incident of what can arise out of the enthusiasm of people who may be amateurs in these rallies, and who are anxious to raise funds for the various organisations of which they are members. I hope that the regulations will be


made available so that anyone may have an opportunity of studying them to ensure that nothing like this is likely to happen.
In subsection (1) there are these words, in brackets:
(other than a race or trial of speed)".
No doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some reason for those words being there. I hope that he can. There are certain events which take place, for instance, in Scotland. There is an annual event on the road up "Rest and be thankful". I do not know whether one would describe it as a rally, but all those who take part in it think of it as a trial of speed. I wonder whether this is covered by some other regulations. I am sure that it must be because we know that road racing as such is not allowed in this way. I draw attention to this fact so that at least we may be satisfied that trials of this kind are covered.

Mr. R. H. Turton: As one who represents a constituency which is very much troubled by these rallies, I should like to congratulate the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) for all their efforts in producing this new Clause. At the same time, I am a little disturbed about some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. I can find nothing in the Clause saying that the only consideration the Minister can have in making his regulations is that of safety. I hope that there will be other considerations. We should be quite clear on this matter before we pass the new Clause.
I am dealing in my part of the constituency with remote villages where, night after night, the villagers are kept awake by rallies going on from one o'clock to half-past four. All my constituents, who are law-abiding and thinking of their work the next day, are in bed, and, clearly, no question of road safety comes into this, but it is an infernal nuisance to all, especially to mothers of young children.
I hope that the remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford is correct. It seems to me that where we are failing at the moment is that those who are organising car rallies are not

always closely co-operating with the local police and local authorities. It is a pity if these regulations do not provide that system of co-operation. The R.A.C. has done very great work in organising these rallies and in steering them away from places which previously have been pestered with too many rallies, but many rallies are not being organised under the R.A.C.
Will the Minister bear in mind that this problem varies a great deal from area to area? It is one problem in the Home Counties and quite another problem in the beauty spot areas, such as my constituency and the constituencies of other hon. Members. We must appreciate that we need local authority cooperation in this matter. I do not want to introduce too much red tape; it is far better that the Minister, in working this regulation, adopts the commonsense approach whereby if the local district authority and the local police are quite happy about these arrangements—these are democratically elected local authorities—then the rally can go ahead; but, if there is objection, I hope that the Minister will see that the interference with peace and quiet in such constituencies as mine is ended forthwith.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I appreciate the purpose of the Clause, but I am anxious about the delegation of authority to one or two bodies, as the Minister has in mind. If there is to be delegation of authority in the working of these regulations, I do not think that it should be in respect of only two bodies in this way.
I wonder whether the chief constables in the areas of such rallies should be the persons responsible, with ultimate responsibility in the Minister. No doubt there are difficulties about that in so far as we do not want to express any views about these local events if there is justifiable criticism, but it strikes me that the point could be met if the committee included the local road safety officer, who would take account of the local circumstances. In that way we, as hon. Members, would have accountability without being particularly restrictive on small issues.
It is only because of this that I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that the local expression of view is not confined to these two bodies, but that there


are other methods by which he can keep his eye on the problem and in that way be able to deal with any justifiable difficulties.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell(Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I heartily welcome the approach in the new Clause, although none of us wishes to see this type of event abolished. Much good arises from them. When the Minister is preparing regulations we should look very sceptically indeed at any power which was given to any outside authority in carrying them out. The House must have final responsibility. The regulations can be dealt with by either negative or affirmative Resolution, and I do not think that the Minister has made up his mind which he will use. We shall not be able to amend the regulations once they are presented; they will have to be accepted or rejected.
I therefore hope that the Minister will accept that the regulations should be subject to affirmative Resolution and will see that they are fully discussed before they are accepted.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have lost all faith in Statutory Instruments, because we have to accept or eject in toto the regulations which are promulgated. It does not much matter whether he have to pass them by affirmative or by negative Resolution if that is the procedure laid down. In either case we have to accept them as a whole or reject them as a whole, even though there may be only one very small point in the regulations of which we do not approve. It may be one single paragraph to which exception is taken, but the House can do nothing about it.
It seems to me that at an earlier stage we ought to find out what is in the Minister's mind when he makes the regulations so that we may criticise them and offer advice and opinion. If something like that could be done, hon. Members on this side of the House would feel happier about handing over to an outside body much of this kind of work, of which we approve and which we wish to see put into operation.

Mr. Archie Manuel: It seems from what hon. Members

have said that most of them are in favour of regulating these motoring events, whatever they may be. I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that the problem is different in different areas. This applies particularly to Scotland. The new Clause contains a statement of intention by the Minister that there will be delegation of authority to control these events in some way by some unspecified body. We must know more about what is in the Minister's mind.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) that there must be accountability to the House. I do not see how we can achieve this on a day-today basis, but it is important that there is at least an annual examination of this problem. I hope that it is not the Minister's intention just to give powers ad lib to the motoring organisations such as the R.A.C. and the A.A.
I can talk intelligently on the subject only in its application to Scotland. I suggest that the major local authorities, not the district councils, are the appropriate bodies, possibly acting through the chief constables, to deal with this matter. My hon. Friend mentioned the safety officer, but we have not safety officers in every county area. If the onus in Scotland were placed on the chief constables through the local authority—or they may be responsible to a number of local authorities, as happens in certain parts of Scotland—that would be an appropriate way of having some control over these events.
Control must not be divorced too far from the local authority. There must be a geographical knowledge of the area in which the trial is taking place. It would have a bad effect if the decisive power to bar an event from taking place were far removed from the area in which it was proposed that it should take place—and I say that bearing in mind that I am in favour of controlling these events.
I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some more information about what is intended and about the bodies to whom it is proposed to delegate this power. Would it not be preferable to do this through the local authority, with the chief constable as the person who makes the decision?

Mr. Hay: I am obliged to the House for the general welcome it has given to the Clause. I am equally obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) for has kindly personal reference. In stirring times like these, people like me take refuge in the remark of the Abbé Sièyes, who said, "I have survived."
Perhaps I should deal, first, with the way in which we envisage proceeding under the Clause, because it is apparent that both the wording of the Clause and my earlier explanation of it have not completely cleared the minds of hon. Members. The first stage in the process, once we have the power the Clause gives us, is to see to the making of the regulations. We shall have to consult an advisory body of some kind, which we shall go about setting up, and it will be the task of the advisory body to give us its views on what the regulations should contain.
That is the first stage. Once the regulations have been made and have been circulated—as we are obliged to circulate them for comment by interested parties—they will be laid before Parliament in the normal way. They will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure of a Prayer and, therefore, there will be an opportunity at that first stage for Parliament to have a look at what we propose to do. Once the regulations are made it will be open to the Minister, in the words of subsection (2) of the new Clause, to
… authorise, or provide for authorising, the holding of such competitions and trials as aforesaid "—
that is, as mentioned in the Clause.
As I said in Standing Committee, we would ask a body, probably the Royal Automobile Club, to undertake the policing of this scheme, as it were. Such a body will be under the general supervision of, and subject, if need be, to the direction of the Minister of Transport. There are advantages in having only one main body controlling these rallies and similar events, because if we had a number of bodies, and particularly if we tried to use the local authorities for the purpose, we should have manifest inconsistencies of treatment. We must have a degree of uniformity

so that people shall know where they are.

Mr. Manuel: The point which I tried to make was that we do not want uniform treatment and that because of the geographical nature of several local authority areas greater freedom should be exercised in the more remote areas. I therefore should have thought that the local authority would have been the appropriate body.

Mr. Hay: I will come to the sort of material that will be contained in the authorisation later when I shall hope to clear up that point. At this stage we take the view, as I have said, that it would be wisest to confer the authorisation of rallies on a single body and that it would not be true, as I think the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) said, that this would give that body a position of some special privilege. The body would be subject to directions from the Minister and it would be expected not only by Parliament, but also by the motoring public to carry out its functions in a proper and fair way.
I was asked whether there would be Parliamentary control over this matter. The answer is that there would be no day-to-day control over the Minister except by the normal method of Parliamentary Questions. I do not think that we want to erect a cumbersome apparatus for this, with annual returns as we have for vivisection and similar activities. I suggest that provided we have the normal machinery of democratic control in the House of Commons this should prove adequate. If not, the House can think again.

Mr. Strauss: Some of us are concerned that when this is operating there may be complaints that in certain areas rallies are held too often or the scheme is not working properly. Presumably, we can ask Questions of the Minister about it. We are concerned that we might have the reply that he has delegated his authority to an outside body and does not want to interfere. The Minister must be in a position to tell the R.A.C. or any other body that it must alter its procedure or arrangements if he thinks it right to do so.

Mr. Hay: In principle, that is quite correct. Once we have conferred the


power to give these authorisations on the R.A.C., or any other body, we do not envisage that the Minister thereafter should stand aloof from the whole affair and take refuge in the fact that he has delegated his powers. I cannot guarantee that on occasion, depending on the Question, the answer might not be that it was not a matter in which the Minister would wish to interfere, but that is a matter of detail. Basically, the principle is as I have stated.

Mr. Steele: I assume that the R.A.C. will be the only body doing this work. In Scotland, the R.A.C. is not the main motoring association. It is the A.A. In many parts of Scotland the R.A.C. does not exist.

Mr. Hay: Perhaps we can wait for the regulations before going into the details. All I say is that these are the basic powers which we are taking under the Bill.
I have told the House now we envisage the two successive stages and why we do not believe that it would be appropriate to try to confer power of authorisation on the local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), supported by an hon. Member opposite, raised the point about the type of authorisation given throughout the country. He rightly said that what might be appropriate in remote Surrey might not be appropriate for a more populous part of Yorkshire, or vice versa. We shall, of course, have regard to the different types of areas, just as we shall have regard to the different types of event.
We would approach the matter from two standpoints. First, as emphasised by my fight hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), there is road safety. Secondly, but by no means least, there is the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned about amenity. Our original standpoint in the whole of this affair was that of road safety. One cannot say that motoring rallies have something wrong with them which causes danger on the roads but, on the other hand, there is some degree of loss of amenity as a consequence of these things getting out of hand. We shall try to keep a balance of those two standpoints in

drawing the regulations, and we shall hope that the R.A.C. or any other body will have these features in mind.

Mr. Turton: I understand my hon. Friends point about wanting the R.A.C. to administer this proposal, but will he bear in mind that it at present organises 600 clubs and that that has not worked very well? Will there be any contact between the R.A.C, the local authority and the local chief constable? The general complaint today is of lack of liaison between the club organisers and the chief constable and the local authority.

Mr. Hay: One of the main purposes of the Clause and of the whole procedure is to deal with both those difficulties. It is true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that the R.A.C. exercises some degree of control over rallies, but it is only in respect of those clubs which are affiliated to it and only on a purely voluntary basis.
The purpose of the Clause is to give some statutory degree of control— indeed, subsection (1) contains a penal provision—but, as to consultation with the local police and other local bodies, it would, of course, be the intention that the R.A.C, or whatever body was authorising the rallies, should keep in the closest touch with local authorities and with the local police—

4.30 p,m.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, in effect, that the regulations will stipulate that whatever body is set up will consult and arrange with the local authorities? These are local authority roads, and I hope that the authorities will be approached in some way, and that we are not to have a national body superimposed on them, the local police, and the rest.

Mr. Hay: I cannot add to what I have already said. I thought that I had made it clear. We must obviously see how we got on, and how the regulations and the advice develop. I do not think that, in reasonableness, we can expect to have separate consultations with every single local authority before every event—that would be going too far—but our intention is that there should be proper local consultation.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) showed a


rather regrettable lack of enthusiasm for delegated legislation. That attitude might, perhaps, have done twenty or thirty years ago, but I suggest that it is a little unrealistic in current conditions. It is true that when a Department produces a Statutory Instrument, embodying regulations, the House must, whether the affirmative or the negative Resolution procedure is used, take it or leave it. It is not possible to amend the regulations. I would, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman that some of our colleagues meet in the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and, in practice, we have found that very often things that ought not to be in Statutory Instruments are brought to the attention of the Department concerned by the Select Committee, and alterations are made. Beyond that, I cannot embark on the general constitutional position.
As I say, I am obliged to the House for the general support it has given to the new Clause. I quite understand that hon Members had questions to ask, and I have done my best to answer them. Perhaps we can now add the Clause to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR.)

(1) The Minister may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, persons driving or riding (otherwise than in side-cars) on motor cycles of any class or description specified in the regulations to wear protective headgear of such description as may be so specified.

(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different circumstances.

(3) Any person who drives or rides on a motor cycle in contravention of regulations under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. —[Mr. Marples.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause has been introduced as the result of an undertaking I gave to the Committee after the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) had made an impassioned and, I thought, a very reasonable and logical speech. He

said that safety helmets should be worn by motor cyclists, and that the Government should take power, if necessary, to provide for that by regulation. After the reception that has been given to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in trying to be helpful to the House and to meet hon. Members' wishes, I confess that I feel a little nervous because, when one tries to help the House, one often runs into great difficulty. However, I hope that I shall have hon. Members with me on this new Clause.
This provision would enable the Minister to make regulations requiring the drivers or pillion passengers of motor cycles to wear safety helmets. It would not give him powers to require sidecar passengers to wear them. The Minister could require, first, both driver and pillion passenger—or only the driver, or only the pillion passenger—to wear helmets. Secondly, he could exempt from the requirements certain types of riders; for example, children under 14, whom it might be difficult to fit with helmets because their heads were either too small, or too big, for the standard size. Thirdly, he could exempt riders of certain types of machine—mopeds, for example.
I should refer to one legal difficulty in prescribing by reference to Section 221 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the type of helmet to be worn. I underline the word "worn", because that Section governs the type of helmet to be sold, which is different from the type to be worn. The Section embodies a warranty concept that cannot be appropriate when it is the wearing of a helmet that is in question. The types of helmet to be worn would, therefore, be specified in the regulations made under the new Clause. It is highly probable that the types would be the same as those prescribed in Regulations under Section 221, because they would be to the standard of British Standard 2001 for the ordinary motor cyclist, or British Standard 1869 for helmets intended for use in motor cycle racing.
It would probably be necessary to prescribe slightly different types for other classes of riders; for example, the policeman on his scooter—not the police traffic patrol—wears a conventional style of police helmet, and the helmets


worn by the Metropolitan Police, are I understand, up to the British Standard which is likely to be prescribed. If the regulations are made, a maximum fine of £50 would be imposed for not wearing a helmet.
The Clause moved in Committee by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, which he withdrew, would have had the effect of requiring all drivers and pillion passengers of motor cycles other than mopeds to wear safety helmets. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) supported that argument in Committee. I think that what both right hon. Gentlemen had in mind was that, in 1956, 40 per cent. of the male riders wore helmets, and in 1962 the figure had risen to 66 per cent., but, in Chair view, that advance was not sufficiently fast, and they felt that regulations should be made to get the hard core of, possibly, about 30 per cent. of male riders of motor cycles to wear helmets.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said in Committee that he would be satisfied if the Minister, whoever he was —and I survived, too—had powers to impose compulsory regulations when he thought fit. He also said that if the Minister indicated that he did not intend to make the regulations for two or three years to come, he would be content as long as the residual power was there for the Minister of the day to use if he thought it necessary.
I accept that argument and, therefore, we have agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in principle, and I am grateful to him. We have put down this new Clause so that the Minister of the day will have power, if he thinks that it is night, to make the regulations. The arguments for the new Clause are very strong, but there are arguments against it, and I think that the House Should listen to their recital, because this move will not be popular with the motor cyclists, although popular with others. When one tries to help people, one sometimes gets an unexpected repercussion from them.
The arguments for the new Clause are, first, that motor cyclists are extremely vulnerable, and we have to recognise that. One of my colleagues on this side has told me that when he was the com-

manding officer of a unit more of his men were killed on motor cycles through not wearing helmets than Hitler killed. That is true, I think, because it is the head injuries to the motor cyclist that cause the damage. In 1961, in the 17 to 19 age group, one out of every 260 of the population was killed or seriously injured on a motor cycle or scooter.
The country should always have in mind the high risk of head injuries to motor cyclists in accidents. Studies made by the Road Research Laboratory have revealed that the wearing of a helmet reduces by 30 or 40 per cent. the risk of injury to that part of the head covered by the helmet. It is, therefore, obvious that the helmet plays a great part in reducing the risk of injury to the head when an accident occurs.
The third point in favour of the Clause is this. I assure the House that there has been a great deal of propaganda on this subject. We have made the helmet glamorous. We have tried to get the girl friends of riders to wear them. We have done everything possible. In spite of all this propaganda, 30 per cent. of male motor cyclists are still not weaning safety helmets.
The fourth argument is that powers to make the wearing of helmets compulsory need not be taken straight away. We are not dictating to motor cyclists that they should wear them tomorrow, or when the Bill has received the Royal Assent. We are reserving to the Minister the right to decide when these regulations should be brought in and we are reserving the right of the House to criticise the Minister for bringing them in too late or too early, as the House may think. It is not dictatorship in that sense.
I am glad to say that motor cyclists have a great deal of spirit. Some of the letters I have received from them have revealed this spirit. They are very fierce individuals. They do not like being dictated to about wearing helmets. They do not wish the wearing of helmets to be made compulsory. I respect their wishes, but we are going to try by propaganda to persuade them to increase the 66 per cent. to very near 100 per cent. If by propaganda we are successful, there will be no need for the regulations. On the other hand, if the


persuasive quality of the Minister of the day, whoever he may be, fails, the regulations will have to be brought in, because we want to protect the motor cyclists, in spite of their stubbornness in wishing not to wear helmets.
The last argument in favour of the Clause is that I think that the requirement will command a wide measure of support from the parents of motor cyclists, from the relations of motor cyclists, and from the girl friends of motor cyclists—but not from the motor cyclists themselves. That is the unpopularity which the Minister of the day will have to bear and hope that he can survive.
The main arguments against the Clause are these. The first is that this is legislation designed solely to protect the individual from the consequences of his own actions and as such is very unusual. I agree with that.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire South, (Mr. Ronald Ball) says "Hear, hear", but it is not only his own actions. If he is injured he is taken to hospital. A large amount of medical attention, which has to be paid for, is given to him which might be better devoted to some other people. He would not have been hurt if he had been wearing a helmet. Therefore, it affects the community as a whole and not only the motor cyclist.
We all have to bear in mind the skill of the doctors who attend an injured motor cyclist who has hurt his head. Skull injuries to motor cyclists are terrifying. The skill of the surgeons could be better devoted to someone else, because if the motor cyclist had been wearing a steel helmet the surgeons would have been free to attend to someone else. Therefore, although I agree in principle that legislation designed to protect an individual from the consequences of his own action is unusual, I think It is justified in this case.
The second argument against the Clause is that compulsion will be unpopular with motor cyclists. I hope that the whole House will support me

in this so that when I do receive complaints from motor cyclists I can say that the House of Commons was unanimous that it is in the public interest that it should be done. I hope that no one will either speak against it or divide against it, but will help me to sustain my argument when I reply to the motor cyclists.
The third argument against the Clause is that propaganda so far has been successful. In 1960, about 60 per cent. of male riders and about 70 par cent. of female riders wore safety helmets. In the first half of 1962 nearly 66 per cent. of male riders and 78 per cent. of female riders wore them. So we have been fairly successful.
Another argument against the Clause is that the law may be difficult to enforce. It seems likely that only motor cyclists not wearing helmets will be charged with committing an offence. This will be resented by the expert motor cyclist travelling a short distance over a main road. However, there it is. We shall have to face that unpopularity.
4.45 p.m.
The last argument against the Clause is that, if the law is enforced, there is a possibility that relations between the police and very young daring motor cyclists will be damaged. Again, I think that, on balance, the arguments are in favour of the Clause.
A man on a motor cycle is about eighteen times more likely to be injured than a man inside a car. That by itself shows how dangerous it is on a motor cycle. It is not that a motor cycle of itself is dangerous, because I personally think that it is much easier to control a motor cycle than it is to control a motor car, since the rider is astride the motor cycle. However, if anything hits a motor cyclist the damage is far greater than that which occurs when a car is hit. That is why the casualty rate is so high amongst motor cyclists.
In 1954, 1,148 motor cyclists were killed. In 1961, 1,544 were killed, an increase of 37·9 per cent. In 1954, 15,847 were seriously injured. In 1961, 26,085 were seriously injured, an increase of 64·6 per cent. In 1954, 35,536 were slightly injured. In 1961, 67,673 were slightly injured, an increase of 90·4 per cent. The overall total of


killed, seriously injured and slightly injured was 52,531 in 1954. In 1961, the figure was 95,302, an increase of 80·1 per cent.

Mr. Robert Mellish: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the breakdown? How many of those killed and seriously injured sustained head injuries?

Mr. Marples: I had intended to come to that point later but I will deal with it immediately.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Before dealing with that, may I ask my right hon. Friend how the figures compare with the increase in the number of motor cycles on the roads, because without those figures they are meaningless?

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend has not allowed me to make the point. He interrupted me half way through my argument. I would have made it in the ordinary course of events. I shall always be logical when my hon. Friend is present.
The rate of increase in the number of casualties is considerably higher than the rate of increase in motor cycle mileage. The rate of increase in the number of deaths is considerably less than the rate of increase in the numbers of seriously and slightly injured. It may be, though it cannot be stated as a fact, that the reason for this lower rate of increase is that many who were seriously or slightly injured would have been killed had not many more people been wearing safety helmets in 1961 than in 1954. We cannot analyse this precisely. However, if they all wore safety helmets there would be fewer casualties than there are now. That is what the House should aim at.
Head injuries were the cause of deaths of riders of or passengers on motor cycles as follows: in 1955, 80 per cent. of deaths; in 1958, 73·7 per cent. of deaths; in 1959, 76·6 per cent. of deaths; in 1960, 70·8 per cent. of deaths. There was a reduction between 1955 and 1960, but there has been an increase in the wearing of helmets between 1955 and 1960 because of propaganda. If propaganda does not succeed in still further increasing the wearing of safety helmets, the regulations are designed to make motor cyclists wear them for their own protection.
We shall continue to press ahead with propaganda. I promise the House that I will do my best by propaganda to persuade motor cyclists voluntarily to wear safety helmets. It is abhorrent to my nature to make the wearing of safety helmets compulsory. However, if I fail in propaganda I think that the House would like the Government to have in reserve the final sanction of being able to make the regulations in the interests not only of motor cyclists, but of the community as a whole.

Mr. Strauss: I hope that the House will agree that the Minister has made a powerful and convincing speech in favour of the Clause. I certainly think so, as he used all the arguments which I put forward in Committee. On that occasion my arguments were apparently not so conclusive, as my proposal was then turned down.
The Parliamemtary Secretary then gave good reasons why it should not be accepted. I do not intend to repeat those reasons which, no doubt, were in his brief. It was only later the Minister stated that in view of the sustained appeal made to him by hon. Members he would consider the matter further to see if something could be done on Report. He has done that and I am grateful to him for meeting us. I am sure that he is doing the right thing.
In Committee, I suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should have the power to impose the obligatory wearing of crash helmets at such a time as he thought necessary. I did not propose that that power should be used immediately and I hoped that the reasonably successful propaganda campaign that had been conducted would be continued. I urged that should the right hon. Gentleman find that the propaganda was not being so successful, he should, by regulations, impose an obligation to wear crash helmets. The Minister has adopted my suggestion. He has been right to do so and I warmly support him.
When this matter was discussed in 1956 I recall that a number of hon. Members—lead, I believe, by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence)—thought it wrong that Parliament should impose on individuals by legislation the type of clothing they should or should not wear.

Mr. Cyril Bence: indicated dissent.

Mr. Strauss: I see that my hon. Friend does not recolleot what happened on that occasion.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was not present on the occasion to which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is referring. The hon. Member he has in mind is actually his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater).

Mr. Strauss: Nevertheless, that opposition was supported by many hon. Members. It is now reasonable to say, following the lapse of time since then and the propaganda that has been conducted, that we should consider afresh the accident rate to motor cyclists and the serious number of them who are killed and injured as a result of head injuries. As the Minister said, this is beyond a personal matter. It is a social matter in which society generally is involved in many ways—the hospitals, the witnesses of accidents, and so on.
I agree that it is unusual for a Government to impose by law on the individual the type of clothing he must wear under certain conditions. The Minister said that the proposal may be unpopular, but it will only be unpopular among the minority of motor cyclists who refuse to wear crash helmets. I do not believe that that matters very much.
The right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, received many letters, as I have, protesting against the proposal. He may suffer a little unpopularity as a result of it, but if he wishes he can spread that unpopularity and involve my hon. Friends and myself. Whatever the unpopularity may be, we will have the compensating satisfaction of knowing that by taking this action we have saved the lives of many young men and have prevented very many others suffering serious injuries.
If propaganda during the next year or two proves to be unsatisfactory, the necessary regulations will be put into operation. I still hope that it will not be necessary to make this an obligatory matter. The House should feel that the power being sought by the Minister may prove to be a significant step towards

reducing the number of fatalities on our roads.
The best way to deal with the accident problem is to concentrate action at the points where the largest numbers of them occur and there apply drastic and perhaps unorthodox methods. While I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on almost every other aspect of his administration where I consider that he is acting wrongly and contrary to the best interests of the nation, on road safety and the taking of action to keep down the number of casualties I willingly pay tribute to his endeavours.

Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer: I rise only because I have little faith in Ministers' assurances that the powers they are seeking will not be used. During the time I have been in the House I have rarely seen that happen. I am aware of the necessity to protect people against themselves in certain circumstances—one must do that with lunatics—but this is one occasion on which I do not think it is suitable to act by legislation.
The figures show that the Ministry's propaganda has increased the wearing of tin hats. I may be at fault, but it has appeared to me—when keeping my eyes on the road, at 30 m.p.h. limit signs and so on—that there are no posters advocating the wearing of crash helmets.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: This propaganda is mainly conducted inside motor cycle clubs, works and similar places where the literature will be read by the people it is aimed at.

Sir O. Prior-Palmer: I do not happen to ride a motor cycle and perhaps that is why I have not seen the literature. But I do drive motor cars and I know the effect posters have on people. I should have thought that a poster campaign would have been an admirable way of conducting this propaganda. I hope that, as he has said, my right hon. Friend will not consider introducing regulations until there has been a fairly intensive campaign. The only thing I like about this whole matter is that the threat of making the wearing of crash helmets compulsory may result in more people feeling inclined to wear them.
Parliament must be careful about the way in which it exercises its power over


the liberty of the subject regarding his own particular choice. Precisely the same arguments which the Minister has adduced in support of the regulations could be applied to safety belts in cars. Does he intend to make the fixing or wearing of safety belts compulsory? If not, why not?
One cannot possibly do better than read the Committee speech of the Parliamentary Secretary fully to appreciate the position. On that occasion some excellent reasons were put forward why this proposal should not be accepted. For the life of me I do not know why the Minister has changed his mind. After all, this is not the British way of doing things and I appeal to my right hon. Friend either to withdraw the Clause or not to attempt to introduce its compulsory powers until after the next General Election.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) made the sort of speech he did. It was rather out of character, and I say that having known the hon. and gallant Member for many years. I have an enormous respect for him and for his views and I tell him without offence that had he examined the facts fully he would know that crash helmets not only save lives now but that if the wearing of them were obligatory many more lives would be saved. I am talking about young adventurous lives, some of the most important we should endeavour to save.
If these lives were saved many parents would be pleased. It would be a worthwhile thing to do for the well-being of the public at large. I have received many letters, probably not as many as the Minister or my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), but the burden of some of them is that a man should have the right to kill himself on a motor cycle if he likes. I have had to write back and to say that, in my view, that is not correct. One is a member of the community, and if one meets with an accident it costs the community money. Hospital beds have to be kept. The amount of money spent in this direction because of accidents and deaths on the road runs into many millions.
5.0 p.m.
I am delighted that the Minister has implemented his promise to consider this matter again and has found it possible to introduce the new Clause. I hope that it will not be long before he puts it into operation. I do not know how many of the 30 per cent. not covered by it will be covered before he takes action.
When we deal with motor cars and motor traffic, we step into a different world, and our conception of what is right and proper in the way of liberty and freedom has to be curtailed. We have to allow many things in restraining the liberty and general freedom of the community. Although this may be a curtailment of the liberty of some young fellow, he may live to thank us for having curtailed his liberty. It is proper from the community point of view that his liberty should be curtailed by asking him to save himself should he meet with an accident.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If I had any doubt about the merit of this proposal, the speech of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) would have resolved me against it. I can imagine no more flagitious doctrine than that we are entitled to interfere with the freedom of young men or, indeed, with that of men of any age beyond childhood in order to keep them alive by limiting the risks to which they expose themselves. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine would fall short of stopping young men going mountaineering. Of course, their doing so involves danger for the rest of the community. If they get lost on a mountain through bad luck, inexperience or faulty equipment, others go out to rescue them. It has always been thought, at any rate in the circles with which I have any acquaintance, that this is a proper risk of living in the world—the risk of having to rescue, treat or mend those who have injured themselves as a result of exposing themselves to danger.
I have never until today heard that argued as a reason for restraining the freedom of the individual. If we admitted that for one moment as a valid reason, then life would be a very miserable, emaciated, desiccated sort of operation, and I hope that the House will utterly turn aside from what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Bence: I recognise the validity of some of the points which the hon. Gentleman has made, but only recently I was on a beach where there was a big sign saying, "Bathing is forbidden in this corner because it is dangerous."

Mr. Bell: I do not know what conclusion one should draw from that.

Mr. Bence: It was an infringement of liberty.

Mr. Bell: We are not talking about infringements of liberty in general, but infringements of liberty of a particular kind. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me or wants to modify a point which I have made, it is obvious that he will have to amplify it, in which case it is better that he makes a separate speech. I do not want to be discourteous, but it is often a good idea if we put forward our own arguments. I do not suppose that everything I say will be flawless, and that will help the hon. Gentleman when he speaks.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) used very much the same argument as my right hon. Friend, who indicated that if people are seriously injured because they are not wearing crash helmets, that might impose a heavy burden on the National Health Service and that therefore it is legitimate to bring in a proposal limiting their freedom because they should not impose a burden on the National Health Service. That would be using the National Health Service as an instrument of tyranny. I think that that argument would apply to almost any kind of conduct. I suppose that if a man fails to develop to the best advantage the gifts in him, he impoverishes the community to that extent. Are we then to impose on him by law obligations to make the best advantage of what is implanted in him lest he should detrimentally affect those who are his contemporaries in the world?
I do not see how liberty could survive some of the definitions to which I have listened this afternoon. I point out to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall that we should not avoid any accidents by doing what is suggested in the new Clause. The right hon. Gentleman spoke persuasively of a technique of concentrating on eliminating a particular source of accidents as a good way of

gradually reducing the number of accidents. But to make people wear crash helmets will not reduce accidents but only the gravity of the consequences.

Mr. Bence: That is worth doing.

Mr. Bell: It may be, but it was not the point which the right hon. Gentleman was making.

Mr. Strauss: It was.

Mr. Bell: It was not. He was saying that this was a way to tackle the frequency of road accidents.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall found the speech of the Minister very agreeable, because he used the same arguments as the right hon. Gentleman had used in Committee. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman will find my speech equally agreeable, because I propose to use the same arguments which the right hon. Gentleman used the last time that this subject came before the House.

Mr. Strauss: Six years ago.

Mr. Bell: General principles do not change an awful lot in six years.

Mr. Strauss: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman quoting what I said then, but perhaps he will also quote the speech that I made in Committee explaining why I had changed my mind after six years.

Mr. Bell: I will try to do full justice to the right hon. Gentleman, but let us be quite clear why he opposed this suggestion when it last came before the House on 31st May, 1956. He said:
… if a motor cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet, in spite of all the propaganda and all the pressure which has been put upon him, he will not in fact be causing the death or injury of anybody else but himself. That is a point to bear in mind. Therefore, by insisting on everybody wearing crash helmets, we shall not be reducing casualties on the roads except those of motor cyclists themselves. It is different introducing regulations providing that the motor cycle must conform to certain mechanical principles "—
one might compare that with equipping a car with safety belts.
All sorts of regulations can be made insisting on conditions pertaining to the motor cycle, because "—
and this is the point—
if something goes wrong with the motor cycle and an accident is caused, it will involve


other cars and other people on the road, but if an injury takes place as a result of the motor cyclist not wearing some particular clothing, it is only the motor cyclist who is involved.
Therefore, I would consider that this proposal is the last step which the Government ought to take. It may be that the time will come when they will have to take that step, but I would much rather wait a little longer before incorporating in the Bill a proposal which offends deeply our general feelings about interference with personal liberty. That was the point put forward very effectively by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater)."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1956; Vol 553, c. 501–2.]
The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say in 1956 that he would rather have the voluntary system of education, propaganda, and so on.
These were arguments of principle. It was not a case of the night hon. Gentleman saying that not enough people were being killed and that not enough motor cyclists received serious injury to justify this. He referred to it as something which injured our deep feelings about personal liberty. He instanced the fact that motor cyclists only were affected. I entirely agree. It was the point put forward by the hon. Member for Sedge-field and by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), to whom the Minister referred in his speech. He said that one of my hon. Friends had told him—

Mr. Marples: I must get this right for the record. On that occasion, I was not referring to the Parliamentary Secretary. I was referring to somebody on the back benches who had told me that. My hon. and gallant Friend was in the Navy, and they do not use many motor cycles there.

Mr. Bell: The Minister's hon. and gallant Friend who is now the Parliamentary Secretary was on the back benches then. He was than, and for all I know still is, a most enthusiastic motor cyclist and a member of a motor cyclists' club. What he does not know about motor cycling is very little. He has been with these boys for years. On 31st May, the hon. and gallant Member for Croy-don, North-East, who is now the Parliamentary Secretary, made a most vigorous attack on this proposal, as did other

hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman says "Yes, but now there are more motor cyclists being injured." That is the argument. I do not see how that links up with the question of principle at all. What the right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be saying in the Standing Committee was actually this. He was not saying thai more people were being injured, but that more people were wearing crash helmets. He was saying that they are fairly generally accepted now, and, therefore, a law about them would be more acceptable than it was seven years ago. That is the argument which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, together with the argument about the National Health Service representing a charge on the community.
I find it a little difficult to deal with arguments put forward in the alternative in this way. If the propaganda is not successful, so that few motor cyclists are wearing crash helmets, then, it is said, "We must have compulsion, because the propaganda is failing." If, on the other hand, the propaganda enjoys the outstanding success which it has enjoyed, so that by far the greater part of the motor cyclists now wear crash helmets, then, it is said, "This has been so successful that we can now have compulsion." It is very difficult indeed to know which is the head and which are the feet of that argument.
Let us look at the figures. When the debate took place in the House six years ago, approximately 40 per cent. of the motor cyclists were wearing crash helmets. Now, six years later, 70 per cent. are wearing crash helmets. The figures are for male motor cyclists 66 per cent., and for female motor cyclists 78 per cent. I am quoting from the figures given by the Department in the debate in Standing Committee. I have them here, showing 66 per cent. for men and 78 per cent. for women. I am being moderate, as I always am, in taking 70 per cent. as the mean, assuming, of course, that there are more male motor cyclists than female—

Mr. Charles Royle: That is not a fair average, because there are very many fewer women motor cyclists than men.

Mr. Bell: I do not think we need to quibble about half per cent. I think that the introduction of the "mopeds", or whatever one calls these things which the girls ride, has greatly altered the proportions. I am not talking about the power-assisted machines, but the rather larger product. These are the figures—66 per cent. for men and 78 per cent. for women, compared with about 40 per cent. six years ago. Nor has the rate of progress slowed down. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the figures in the debate in the Standing Committee a fortnight ago. He said, referring to the figures:
They indicate that in 1960… about 60 per cent. of male riders and about 70 per cent. of female riders wore safety helmets. Another survey was done in the first half of this year. It showed that the figures have risen to 66 per cent. of male riders"—
that is, from 60 per cent.—
nd nearly 78 per cent. of female riders."—
that is, from 70 per cent., so that the figures for the last year, or, it may be for nine months, have risen by at least 6 per cent. and probably by about 7 per cent.

Mr. James Dance: Has my hon. Friend any information as to the number of pillion passengers who wear these helmets?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Bell: I think that the word used in the official statistics is "riders", and whether "riders" includes those who travel on a pillion or not I do not know. I gather that it probably does, because I see an hon. Member opposite nodding his head. I suppose it includes everybody, and I imagine that it is a fairly representative figure. I quote it because it shows that the impetus is not slowing down. It is going on. It is a magnificent performance, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it. I think that he would agree that the R.A.C., the A.A., and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents all played a part in this, and that it was a wonderful success. I do not think that we would have hoped six years ago that by purely voluntary effort we could have had this remarkable increase, so that now it is really a small minority who are left.
Then, it is said, "We must introduce compulsion ". I ask the House to bear

in mind that this proposal was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in the Standing Committee on 5th July, and the Parliamentary Secretary, in asking the Committee to reject it, gave the figures, and said this:
I suggest that the success of the propaganda to date is encouraging. The figures show that more and more motor cyclists, without compulsion, are wearing crash helmets. Before we make it compulsory to wear crash helmets as the new Clause would require, I think we ought to give that propaganda and that effort a further chance.
He went on—and this is more important, because this survives any question of figures:
There are certain other reasons I must advance against making this change compulsory. In a society like ours, Parliament must be somewhat chary of intervening to require people to be protected against the consequences of their individual acts. The public as a whole resent as grandmotherly and fussy legislation which appears to them not to be really necessary. In this connection, a great many motor cyclists who at the moment do not wear crash helmets but who through example and propaganda might well come to wear them, would resent very much fussy legislation which ordered them to wear crash helmets.
I have tried to give our general view on this. We do not think that the time has come when compulsion should be written into the law. We feel that the success of propaganda and example has been so great since 1956, and the figures are going on rising all the time, that before we intervene in this situation and make it compulsory, with all the evident disadvantages that I have explained, more time should elapse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th July, 1962; c. 796–8]
Then, my hon. Friend said that if the figures should level off, that would be quite a different matter.
But there is the question of principle. This was said on 5th July, and the new Clause with which we are dealing was put down on 11th July, six and a half days later. How do general principles change in this way?

Mr. Popplewell: The Tory Party should know that.

An Hon. Member: There must have been a by-election.

Mr. Bell: I am not surprised that I do not see the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench. How, to quote his own words, has "a society like ours" changed in six and a half days?

Mr. Steele: The Government have changed.

Mr. Bell: How is it that what, on 5th July, was "grandmotherly and fussy" is now so desirable that my right hon. Friend appeals to us emotionally that no voice should be raised against it, so that this should be the ethos and undivided spirit of the House of Commons?
I remember that when questions were asked about this in the latter part of 1956, the noble Lord Lord Molson, who was at that time Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, said that he thought that the hon. Member who asked the question could not have read the debate in the House, when it was clear that opinion on both sides was strongly against this proposal.
There it is. One does not want to labour a matter like this, but in conclusion I will deal with the specific point put forward by my right horn. Friend. In a way, he conceded the arguments of principle and said, "Well, yes, but sometimes one reaches a point when this sort of thing must be done. We have not reached it yet, but we might, and I should like to have the powers."
This is my answer. I agree that questions of general principle are not always and for all time and in every circumstance appropriate. Special circumstances can arise when one should do things which are repugnant to one's general approach to public affairs. When, however, the House of Commons is asked to do that, it should be done on a rather special occasion. First, it should not be done by a new Clause on the Report stage of a Bill brought from the Lords, because the real control of this House over legislation is in Standing Committee upstairs.
We all know what happens on the Floor of the House. There are Government Whips, as there are Opposition Whips. An hon. Member may speak. I do not suppose that I have persuaded any hon. Member today. Suppose, however, that I had persuaded every hon. Member in the Chamber except the Minister. It really would not matter, because it would be passed on a Division anyway, that being the nature of things on Report.
A matter like this, which was generally condemned six years ago and was condemned in clear terms upon principle six days before it was put down, ought not to be introduced as a new Clause on the Report stage of a Bill brought from the Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was discussed in Committee."] It is wrong to say that it was discussed. It was raised at the last meeting of the Committee, but it was turned down in clear language by the Parliamentary Secretary. All that my right hon. Friend said when hard pressed was that he would look at the matter. The Committee had no chance whatever of dealing with it, nor can one say that it will be dealt with in another place. This is not the right sort of thing to be done in that way.
My second comment is this. If a Minister comes to the House and says, "I have a special set of circumstances. I can produce figures and I can marshal considerations which, I think, will persuade even hon. Members who have the sternest principles on the matter that an exception should be made", of course one listens and often enough, guided as one must be by those who hold executive responsibility, one says, "Very well, this must be done."
It is, however, wrong to come to the House and ask for a gap in an important general principle and to say, "The circumstances which would justify it do not exist. I hope that they never will, but they might. Therefore, I should like to have this power in case I think it right to use it." That is not right.
If the circumstances should arise— and I hope that they will not—then let the Minister come and make his case and ask for a dispensation. The House is always reasonable and may well grant it. Things being as they are, however, I make my protest against this procedure in both its aspects—the stage of the Bill at which it comes and the nature of the request which is made to us. Probably it is useless to make it on Report, but I make it for what good it may be and I earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw his new Clause.

Mr. Tom Brown: It is not my intention to follow the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). On


one occasion many years ago, I followed the hon. Member pleading for compensation to be paid to injured miners. On this occasion, I plead to have the Clause inserted in the Bill to prevent death, compensation and injury. I welcome the Clause sincerely because I realise what it will do.
I also welcome the persuasive method and attitude adopted by the Minister. He was more persuasive today than ever I have seen him when he persuaded this House to give him its wholehearted support, which we do—at least, I for one give him that support.
The Minister talked about propaganda. I should like briefly to relate the effect of propaganda when rightly applied. Many years ago, we argued that miners in the pits should wear safety helmets. One of the strong arguments that we had to refute was that miners could not wear safety helmets in the pits because of the excessive temperatures under which they worked. They work in a temperature of between 90 and 120 degrees, so they suffer great discomfort. We overcame that argument.
The motor cyclist cannot advance that argument. The only argument he can advance in objecting to wearing a safety helmet on his motor cycle is one born of stupidity. I say with all frankness that a motor cyclist who refuses to wear a safety helmet when travelling on his motor cycle is stupid.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) was right when he said that this is a great social and human problem. It has its effect directly and indirectly upon our social services. It has its effect directly upon the man or woman who rides a motor cycle. I beg the Minister to continue his persuasive methods and I hope that when he introduces the regulations which the Clause will enable him to do, he will still continue to be persuasive with these men and women.
We all know from experience that youth is an age of bravado. People of that age take risks unnecessarily. We want to tell them that those risks involve them in accidents which have various unfortunate consequences if they refuse to wear safety helmets. I hope that the Minister continues with his work of

propaganda. To use compulsion would be the last resort.
There is one respect in which I should like the new Clause to be more precise. If the Minister cannot do what I ask at this stage, I ask him to do it in the regulations. I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the words "persons driving or riding". I wish he would refer to pillion riders. I have had reference to this when I have been advocating the wearing of safety helmets by motor cyclists and pillion riders. The motor cyclist says that he is fulfilling his duty as a rider on the highway if he himself is wearing a safety helmet. I hope that in the regulations the Minister will specifically mention the pillion rider, who should wear a safety helmet just as the driver should.
I welcome the new Clause wholeheartedly, I wish the Minister luck with his persuasive methods, and I plead with him to continue them, not indefinitely but as long as is reasonable. If at the end of that time those concerned do not yield to persuasive methods, there is nothing else that we can do but make is compulsory for them to wear safety helmets.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I was glad to hear the bon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) introduce some common sense into the debate. In industry, in works, there are a great many regulations for the protection of men—helmets for miners in the pits, industrial boots for steelworkers, goggles for welders, and so on. There is nothing wrong in English law about having regulations for the protection of men.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend is slightly wrong about this. What is compulsory is the provision of these things by the employer. The wearing of them is not compulsory, not even, I think, in the case of the miner's safety helmet.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am not certain about that, but certainly employers make the wearing of protective gear compulsory or a condition of employment.
The debate illustrates a fissure in the Conservative Panty. There is the liberalistic Whiggish side, the freedom of the individual and so on, and the paternalistic, benevolent authoritarian on the other side. I am glad that my


hon. Friend has joined the authoritarian Tory side today in the draft regulations.
An example was brought to my mind by the local newspaper in my constituency the other day. At the weekend a Fleet Street dispatch rider was killed on the Great West Road when riding a motor cycle without a hairnet. In his work he would wear a helmet because it was part of his job, but at the weekends he did not wear one. The coroner said that he would have been alive today bad he been wearing a helmet that weekend as he normally did during the week.
We owe something to the community. A great deal of money is invested in young men, in their education. Parents are surely entitled to tell their children, "You must wear a helmet", and I think that the community is entitled to tell young men, just as is said to them in works, "You must wear a helmet." We do not want to lose valuable lives at the age of 21 after a great deal has been invested in education and the acquisition of skills. I have intervened to make clear that, besides the Liberalistic opinion, there is a body of opinion in the Tory Party which believes in protecting lives.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I should like to add a few words to what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has just described as a commonsense point of view. I speak as a member of the Committee of the Royal Automobile Club. Tribute has been paid to it for the great work that it has done in trying to persuade motor cyclists and pillion riders to do something for their own benefit.
I agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that this is a surprising volte face on the part of the Ministry of Transport and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, but I do not think we should castigate the hon. Gentleman too severely for that. After all, he has listened to arguments put very cogently and plausibly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and has changed his mind, or the Minister has. What is wrong with that? I wish that Parliament could listen to arguments and treat matters on their merits rather than take a rigid point of

view on an academic argument, as I think the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South did.
I hope that the Minister will do all he can, short of regulation, to encourage the voluntary organisations which are doing their best, with considerable success, to induce young people to wear crash helmets for their own safety. What is wrong, incidentally, with Parliament being grandmotherly? After all, a grandmother knows quite a number of things from long experience. Consequently, I do not think it is right to criticise, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, doing something which Parliament ought to consider doing on occasion if it thinks fit and if the arguments warrant it. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South will know that circumstances alter cases, even in the law. Therefore, his arguments about principle, although very interesting, are not necessarily like the laws of the Medes and Persians—unchangeable. Surely we have to move with the times.
Therefore, I congratulate the Minister upon having listened to the point of view expressed from these benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South said, has changed his point of view. I am glad to hear that. I am glad to say that in the quotation which the hon. Member gave from my right hon. Friend's speech and the quotation from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech there were certain things which were too rigid and would have been better not said. After all, if the principle of safety is right, we should do everything we can to augment it and carry it to its logical conclusion in reducing road casualties unless it imposes severe hardship, which this proposal does not do. Parliament should use a good deal of commonsense and be aware of its responsibility to the public, because road accidents are simply terrible, and if they can be avoided by young men, we ought to try to ensure that they are avoided.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything he possibly can to encourage organisations like the Royal Automobile Club and the A.A. in the training of motor cyclists. We have put this point of view to the right hon. Gentleman time and time again.


Generally speaking, the Ministry of Transport has been sympathetic in providing grants and so forth to enable such organisations to instil into young drivers right at the start a sense of safety and care on the road. If the right hon. Gentleman can still further help us in these measures, I feel that he may avoid more road accidents than by making compulsory regulations about the wearing of crash helmets.
After all, what does a crash helmet do? It merely reduces the possibility of a serious accident. As my grandmother used to teach us, "Prevention is better than cure". Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will do a little more to help us in the training of motor cyclists, I think we may go much farther towards reducing the necessity for the wearing of crash helmets.

Mr. Graham Page: There is no doubt that the habit of wearing crash helmets has caused a reduction in the ratio of fatal accidents to the total number of accidents to motor cyclists, but I do not think that we ought to kid ourselves that crash helmets will reduce the number of accidents to motor cyclists.
My right hon. Friend used a false argument when he said that if we enforce this provision, if we persuade motor cyclists more and more to wear crash helmets, fewer will be taken to hospital. Last week I was studying the accident service of a hospital with which I am concerned, and the figures showed a very heavy increase in the use of that accident service over the past 12 months and in its call on the beds of the hospital. When I studied the figures I found that the number of motor cyclists admitted had increased very substantially. I said, "This is rather extraordinary. I thought that the number of accidents to motor cyclists had gone down slightly in the last 12 months." I was told, "Yes, that is so, but in the old days they were killing themselves on the roads and they were brought not into the hospital but into the mortuary. Now that more of them are wearing crash helmets we are getting more injured in the accident service and they are taking up more beds." So I do not Chink my right hon. Friend should use that argument.
The moral that I draw from this is that there may well be a false sense of security on the part of pillion riders and motor cyclists with regard to the wearing of safety clothing. I think that my right hon. Friend is right in taking power to apply this measure compulsorily and thereby prevent deaths, but at the same time I am worried that the false sense of security may lead to an increase in the total number of accidents. If that is the case, we must be ready to enforce the law on the roads with greater severity, particularly the law with regard to careless driving and safety matters. I fear that the more we go in for safety clothing, the greater may be the number of risks taken, and, possibly, the greater may be the number of injuries.

Mr. C. Royle: I do not think I should have been drawn to my feet if it had not been for the speeches by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I found them appallingly dangerous.
I was amazed at the equanimity of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South in addressing the House in the manner he did when we are concerned with matters of life and death on the roads. It seems that he is brushing aside the great problem with which we are faced. In passing, I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is not advocating increasing the population of the mortuaries on purpose, to avoid an increase in the population of hospital beds. I did not quite follow the horn. Gentleman's argument.
This is an old subject, and an old argument. The question is where does freedom end and licence begin? That is what we are concerned about in this debate. I suggest that everything that has been said on the question of the freedom of the individual has drifted into the sphere of licence rather than the sphere of freedom. When the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South was speaking one of my hon. Friends interrupted him to say that he was at the seaside a few days ago and saw a notice which prohibited bathing because of the danger. The hon. Gentleman's "comeback" to that intervention was, "Well, that is an interference of a particular


kind." In every one of these cases we are dealing with interference of a particular kind.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not think that it matters, but I said that I was discussing interference of a particular kind and I did not want to get drawn into beaches. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might like to develop that in his speech.

Mr. Royle: I accept that correction, but we cannot separate what we are discussing this afternoon about interference by Parliament from the other things that we have done. If we take this to its logical conclusion, we find that we have put on the Statute Book many Acts which, although opposed at the time, are today regarded as necessary and desirable.
At one time the Plimsoll line was regarded as an interference with the freedom of some individuals who were sending unsafe ships to sea. Mr. Plimsoll fought for this principle in the House session after session until he was successful. Would anyone today today question the wisdom of his interference with individual freedom?
My Hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) quoted instances of Parliament having interfered with individual freedom. It is all very well to take note of public opinion. In fact, we have a duty to do so, but there are occasions when this House must lead, and sometimes we must be ahead of public opinion on matters of great importance. I regard the preservation of the lives of our young people as of vital importance.
One could also quote the outcry among people who use cycles when Parliament decided to make it compulsory for cyclists to show rear dights. There was a terrific outcry. Does anyone, particularly the motorist who is following a cyclist in the dark, now doubt the wisdom of the action which Parliament took to interfere with the freedom of cyclists?
I do not want to speak at length. I think that the case can be made briefly and forcibly. There is one acid test. Ask the mother, the wife, or the girl friend of any man who has been killed

because he was not wearing a protective helmet whether this is a wise decision for this House to make. I have no doubt what the reply will be, and I hope that the House will unanimously give the Minister the power which he seeks in this new Clause and wild let it be known that these helmets should be worn to preserve the lives of our young people.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Buckingham, South took to task my right hon. Friend for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the Parliamentary Secretary for changing their minds. I do not know whether this cap will fit, but the great Duke of Wellington once said that wise men sometimes change their minds, but fools never. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to take that to himself.

Mr. Antony Buck: After mature reflection I take the view that this is a useful power for the Minister to have, for three reasons. First, the exercise of this power may cause there to be fewer deaths on the roads. This point has been fully dealt with, and I leave it there. Secondly, it is a power which does not really conflict with individual freedom to any substantial degree. One has to look at the realities of the situation. It cannot be said to be a burden that a person should have to wear a crash helmet. It is rather akin to the regulations that apply to motorists with regard to safety belts. It cannot be said to be a grave infringement of individual freedom that a person, when he gets on a motor cycle, should have to equip himself with a "skid-lid".
Thirdly, the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) does not apply in all its purity when one is considering the highways. If people wish to commit suicide by the use of a motor cycle, they can well do it in private. They can ride round their gardens without wearing helmets, but there has always been interference with a person's behaviour on the Queen's highway. It is not true that it is only a question of the individual's safety. No one has a right to cause a nuisance on the highway, and a person who has suffered a crushed head presents a terrifying sight. Throughout our history there has been interference with a person's rights on the highways to see


Chat the highways are properly conducted.
For those reasons I feel that this is a useful power for the Minister to have.

Mr. Marples: It might be courteous if I answered some of the points which have been made. Perhaps I might summarise by saying that with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) and some other hon. Members who may have had qualifications, the House is with me on this issue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about interference with the liberty of the subject, but the Minister of Transport has a grave responsibility for the deaths and injuries which occur on the roads, and I tell the House quite freely that this is the most; difficult task I have ever undertaken. With nearly 7,000 people a year being killed, and hundreds of thousands being injured, it is not nice to be Minister of Transport and know that one is practically powerless to prevent a lot of the accidents. But those accidents which I can prevent I intend to prevent by all the means in my power. I take this side of my Ministry seriously, and in the last 12 or 18 months we have had some limited success. This does not give grounds for complacency, but it does give ground for guarded optimism that we are making inroads into the problem.
I looked at the war record of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing and found that he was a brigadier. Did he have any regulations about the wearing of safety helmets when he was a brigadier? The answer is that he did. Is my hon. and gallant Friend saying that he did something in the Army which he did not want to do? In the circumstances he should have resigned his brigadiership. He could have become a private. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South was in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. The Navy do not use motor-cycles, so he does not have the intimate knowledge possessed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing. I ask my hon. and gallant

Friend to communicate with me privately and let me know how many men in his unit would have been saved if they had been using helmets. He should have obtained that information before making the sort of speech he made today.
Hon. Members have asked why my hon. Friend changed his mind, and why the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) changed his. What is the use of having a House of Commons, or the Committee stage of a Bill, if we all come in with rigid minds from the word "go"? There is no point in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has inscribed over his doorway the legend:
I never mind listening to reason when I have made up my mind, because then it can do me no harm.
In this connection, my hon. Friend and I are the most reasonable couple in the House. We have survived everything. [HON. MEMBERS: "So far."] My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South asked if we should stop people from going mountaineering. I do not know whether he goes, but I do— and I wear a steal helmet. I am prepared to take him rock climbing. He need not wear a steel helmet, and then he will not be a trouble to me for very long. Mountaineers have various safety equipment—helmets, running belays, pitons, karabines, and so on—which is not compulsory, but which most sensible climbers use. My hon. Friend may not wish to be one of the sensible people.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My right hon. Friend is getting a little wide of the argument. I approve of people wearing safety helmets when riding motor cycles. I approve of every sensible type of equipment for mountaineering or for anything else, but what we are now discussing is the question whether the use of such equipment should be made compulsory by law.

Mr. Marples: I say that on the roads it should be. If a man wants to go climbing over rocks I do not say that he should have to wear certain equipment, because he is not then interfering with third parties. But when he is on the roads he is in contact with other people. A motor cyclist may be injured if a motor car hits him, and the motorist


may think that if the motor cyclist had been wearing a helmet he would not have been injured. Third parties are liable to be involved.
I am afraid that I must honestly part company with my hon. Friend in this matter. I disagree with him entirely, and I hope the whole House will be with me in this matter. It is right that men working on the Medway Bridge and in civil engineering and building should be obliged to wear safety equipment, and it is also right that motor cyclists should have to do so. I shall try, with all the power at my command, to persuade motor cyclists to wear these helmets, rather than order them to do so. The Clause does not order them to do so; it merely gives me reserve powers if propaganda fails. I am sure that the House would not wish to deny a Minister that right. I feel very deeply on the matter, and I hope that the House will unanimously agree that the Clause should be added to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(DRIVING WITH UNCORRECTED DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT.)

(1) If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such (whether through a defect which cannot be or one which is not for the time being sufficiently corrected) that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under the principal Act for the purposes of tests of competence to drive, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

(2) A constable having reason to suspect that a person driving a motor vehicle may be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this section may require him to submit to a test for the purpose of ascertaining whether, using no other means of correction than he used at the time of driving, he can comply with the said requirement as to eyesight; and if that person refuses to submit to the test he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.—[Mr. Hay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee, if, at the same time, we discuss the Amendment to the First

Schedule, in page 31, line 22, column 1, at the beginning to insert:
25. An offence under section (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) of this Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight or refusing to submit to test).
The Clause has been put down as a result of an undertaking given by the Government in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He tabled a proposed new Clause reflating to eyesight conditions in respect of driving licences, and we undertook to examine the point and to put down our own Clause. This is the result. The object of the Clause is to make it an offence for anyone to drive a motor vehicle on a road if, at the material time, he is incapable of meeting the eyesight standard which is laid down for the driving test. In meeting that standard he will be quite entitled to wear glasses, if that is his normal practice.
The point which the House ought to grasp in understanding the new Clause is that the standard of eyesight that we prescribe for the driving test is used as the criterion by which the new offence created by the Clause will be measured. Subsection (1) provides that if a person drives a motor vehicle on a road at a time when his eyesight is in such a condition
that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under the principal Act
he commits an offence, whether his failure is due to a defect or not.
It is just as though, in the course of his driving, he were required suddenly to take an eyesight test of the kind that he had to take when he first took out his licence. The House will probably know that that test is the ability to read a number plate consisting of six symbols, in good daylight, at a distance of 25 yards. In practice, this has proved to be a fairly reasonable sort of test.
We are to discuss the question of distance on another new Clause, in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), so we may perhaps talk about that aspect of the matter in more detail when we reach that Clause. For this purpose all I want to say is that the test whether an offence is committed under subsection (1) is whether or not the driver, wearing glasses or not, can read a number plate at a distance of 25 yards in good daylight.

Mr. Mellish: Can the Minister assure us that when we reach the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) he will not use the fact that we agree to this Clause—assuming that we do so—as an argument against the acceptance of that Clause?

Mr. Hay: Yes. I merely wanted to point out in passing that we shall be considering the 25-yard limitation in somewhat greater detail in connection with that new Clause. Apart from that there is no correlation between the two new Clauses.
Subsection (2) deals with the enforcement of the provisions of subsection (1), and gives power to a constable who has reason to suspect that an offence has been committed under subsection (1) to require a driver to submit to a test for the purpose of ascertaining whether he can comply with the eyesight requirement and read a number plate at a distance of 25 yards. When the constable conducts such a test the driver will be quite entitled to wear his spectacles if he normally does so when driving. In other words, if when he took the original eyesight test, at the time when he took out his licence, he was wearing glasses, he will still be able to wear them when taking the test on the road which the constable requires him to take.
When drafting the new Clause we had in mind a specific situation which has long been the subject of criticism. It is rightly said that people have to take an eyesight test—although it is a rudimentary one—at the time of taking out their licence, and are obliged, upon renewing their licence every year, to answer a question which asks whether they can continue to see a number plate at 25 yards, but that there is nothing to stop a person whose eyesight deteriorates during the currency of his licence from continuing to hold that licence. We are trying to deal with that situation and, at the same time, to deal with the position of the driver who has to wear glasses to be able to meet the eyesight standard but who fails to wear them while driving.
6.0 p.m.
One often hears of a man who wears his glasses when taking his eyesight test, but does not wear them when driving.

I remember that years ago my mother told me of a couple who were friends of hers. The man who did the driving could hardly see across the road. His wife always accompanied him. When my mother asked how he was able to drive, the wife said that she told him whether anything was coming. That was, of course, a good many years ago, and in the present conditions on the roads it would not do. But undoubtedly a number of people, as we have discovered, take a driving teat while wearing glasses, but do not wear their glasses when driving thereafter, thereby circumventing the whole purpose of the test. They will be caught by the provision in the Clause. Our object is to try to tighten up the law and I hope that the House will accept the Clause.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to thank my hon. Friend for carrying out an undertaking which was given during the Committee stage to introduce a Clause of this nature. I am particularly glad that he is not proposing to "mess about" and take powers by regulation, but that this will become law straight away; so that if a person is so careless of the safety of others that he drives with defective eyesight, he will be dealt with.
When discussing a previous Clause we talked about motor rallies. A certain amount of screening of competitors in those rallies has taken place and it has been found that a high proportion of the drivers have defective eyesight. I think, therefore, that a Clause of this kind is well justified and will increase safety on the roads.

Mr. Norman Cole: I support the intention of the Clause. I noted that my hon. Friend used the word "constable". What will happen if, as often occurs in an accident involving a motor cyclist, the spectacles which he normally wears, and which he was wearing at the time, were broken? The only way to test the eyesight of the person in those circumstances would be to go to the optician to obtain the prescription for his spectacles and to test him with a similar pair of glasses, if the officer has reason to believe that an offence had been committed under the provisions of this Clause.
Does my hon. Friend mean that the constable will carry out the test? I cannot believe that that would be so. Our constables have enough to do now. I imagine that the test would be carried out by a doctor at the police station.

Mr. Hay: The first point raised by my hon. Friend 'the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) related to a person involved in an accident who was unfortunate enough to have his glasses broken. One must look at the terms of subsection (2), Which says that
A constable having reason to suspect that a person driving a motor vehicle may be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) … may require him to submit to a test for the purpose of ascertaining whether, using no other means of correction than he used at the time of driving, he can comply with the said requirement …
If, because they have been broken, the driver has not available the spectacles which were his means of correction and which he used at the time of driving it would be a complete defence. There is no doubt about that. I do not think that there is any point which needs to be made about it. If the glasses are broken, obviously that would prevent a test being made because the conditions laid down by the subsection could not be fulfilled.
The term "constable" is the normal form of drafting. It means a police officer. I do not think that my hon. Friend appreciates that we are simply giving power to a policeman to require a driver, using glasses or not, depending on the circumstances, to show that he can read a number plate 25 yards away in good daylight. I do not think that any great expertise is required by the constable. The Ministry of Transport driving examiners do this many times a day with candidates for driving tests. They are simply asked, "Can you read a number plate 25 yards away?" If the person can correctly spell out the letters and digits they pass, and, if not, they do not pass.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Is it possible that this provision may be used to test people who are unable to read a number plate at 25 yards because they have had too much to drink?

Mr. Hay: We have not the obscurity of approach that the hon. Gentleman imagines.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is probably reasonable and necessary to have a general power of the kind contained in this Clause. If we are to tell motor cyclists to wear helmets when riding their machines, there is no reason why we should not compel people with defective eyesight to wear spectacles when driving. I am a little uneasy about the power which is given to a constable to make, as it were, an instantaneous test. That power does not seem to be defined in any way.
It is true that the Clause says, if he has "reason to suspect", or some such words. But what would be such a reason? Unless there is some idea of what would entitle a police officer to stop a driver in the street at any time, and say, "Come on, now, let me apply a test to you," that power could lead to indiscriminate or arbitrary action. I do not know whether the Minister proposes to take power, by regulation or something of that kind, to define circumstances which would amount to a reasonable cause within the meaning of the Clause.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It is necessary to take these general powers. But I do not think the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary fully appreciate that here there are a number of loopholes.
As I understand it, the Clause gives a police officer power to test a driver immediately to see whether he can read a number plate at 25 yards. If he cannot, presumably action may be taken against him. The conditions under which the person may be called on to read the number plate at 25 yards varies enormously. Have the Minister's advisers considered the situation which might arise where a man who has taken a test, and presumably satisfied the examiners that he can read the number plate at 25 yards, acquires a defect in his eyesight during the next twelve months?
The man may be quite unaware of this, and it seems a little hard that he should be proceeded against for a breach of the law. Would it be possible in such circumstances for the police officer, or


some other authority, to say to him, "You do not satisfy the test at the moment. But can you, within five days" —or whatever period may be decided— "produce a certificate from a competent authority"—an ophthalmologist or an optician—"to show the state of your eyesight?"
It is a fact that a person with a considerable error visually can, under some circumstances, pass a test of this kind at a certain time of the day without glasses. Take the example, of which we may be all familiar, of a friend, a member of the family, or even a fellow Member, whom one knows wears spectacles, and who may be short-sighted without them. Sometimes one sees this person peering to see an object clearly, and for a moment he can achieve a clear vision. Were he stopped by a police officer he might get through the test and be able to read a number plate at 25 yards. That would not alter the fact that he suffers from defective eyesight.
There are other considerations, such as whether the person concerned is tired or not feeling well, or that early in the morning he could pass the test and late in the day he could not. Is it possible for the Minister to look again at this matter to see whether, under some circumstances, it could be said to a person who failed to pass the test, "You ought to take advice from a person qualified to advise" and whether a certificate could be produced at the police station at a later date.

Mr. J. T. Price: Having been a member of the Standing Committee, I appreciate and largely sympathise with the intention of the new Clause. Anything I say is not offered in any carping spirit, but I think that the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths), who is an optician and knows the technical aspects of the questions, should be listened to with respect.
While most of us who had to deal with the technicalities of the Bill still say that the overriding consideration in all our deliberations has been to increase the safety factor on the roads and to remove dangers which can be dealt with rationally and. sensibly, we do not wish to

create new offences and penalties which would seem unfair to certain types of drivers. The Clause has technical aspects, as we have been made aware by the comments which have been made upon it by hon. Members.
Am I to understand that by putting this legislation on the Statute Book every police officer—after all, they are not lawyers—is to be briefed on these rather fine regulations and conditions so that he can deal properly with anyone he suspects to be suffering from defective eyesight? The word "suspects" is itself a very doubtful one, because suspicion is a subjective condition of the individual in whose breast suspicion lingers. The police are excellent men, but often they have more than a natural amount of suspicion on all sorts of things.
Many motorists who, quite rightly, are pulled up for a small technical offence become excited when they get into conversation with a police officer and begin to argue. Then the police officer who has taken a particular interest in traffic regulations goes through a number of things, such as the testing of brakes, steering and mechanical parts of the car. As a result, instead of being faced with one charge at the local police court, the motorist may find himself faced with a multiplicity of charges on a number of technicalities embodied in the legislation.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Why not?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Price: I agree with my right hon. Friend, but we do not want to make it easy for the people who send us here to be subjected to unnecessary testing and checks on all kinds of technical points.
Eyesight is not only a physical condition of the eyes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange said, this question is often affected by the time of day and other circumstances, such as the man's health at the time. I think that enough has been said to justify the feeling that perhaps this provision is too widely drawn. We should add a safeguard, so that a man who questioned the test made by a policeman could have his sight tested by someone who is qualified to carry out such a test.
I am not trying to quibble or to split hairs, but even the most highly-qualified optician knows that his patient ultimately does the testing himself. He has to answer the question about what he can see, even in the surgery. I hope that I have expressed my doubts temperately. I am not satisfied that this proposal as at present drawn would produce an equitable and completely justifiable aspect of the law. I think that it would be unevenly administered.
It is often said that a grave defect of magistrates is that, with all their virtues, they do not administer the law evenly. It is possible for a magistrate to be suffering from a "hang-over", or to be in a rather cantankerous state. How much easier is it for a policeman, questioning a motorist on some other matter, suddenly to remember that in the police station the week before there was a lecture about defective eyesight among motorists. He might then try himself out to see how good he is as an eyesight tester.
I do not wish to labour this, but, even though we are at a late stage of consideration of the Bill, the Government ought to see whether they can bring more equity and justice to bear in relation to this Clause, which otherwise, on general principle, I support because I believe that it will lead to greater safety on the roads.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope that the Minister will not be weary in well doing because of the criticism that he has met. We dealt with this matter in Committee and it was generally agreed that good eyesight was one of the essentials for being a good driver. If one had not got it, either with or without spectacles, one had no right on the road, because then one would be not only a danger to oneself but to pedestrians and other users. I take it that we are all agreed that something of this kind should go into the Bill.
I listened with interest to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths). He is an expert on this matter. It may be that the Clause needs tightening up in certain directions. Perhaps, in order to make progress, the Minister, without promising anything, could say that he

will have another look at it and that, if necessary, something will be inserted in another place. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Bill has been there."] In that case, I should rather have this wording than no wording. I understand that a constable or police officer would not make an immediate test on the road.

Mr. Hay: He would.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I thought that, normally, he would make arrangements for an occulist to make a test under the supervision of a police surgeon or someone else and that evidence of that kind would be conclusive. Nevertheless, I repeat that I would rather have this form of words—which, I am sure, will be used with circumspection—than no form of words at all.

Mr. Mellish: I must sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary in that this is the third occasion on which, having responded to a request in Committee to come forward with a necessary Clause, he has been criticised in some respects for doing so.
I want to get this point clear, in view of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths). Suppose that a constable pulls up a man driver who has been involved in a minor collision and suspects that his eyesight is faulty. He says to the driver, "I want you to read those figures, 25 yards away." The constable then decides that the driver is unable to read them. Surely, in a court of law, the constable's submission could be challenged. If it were then shown by a professional man that the driver fulfilled the conditions, the constable's evidence would be invalid. Surely it would not follow that because the constable said that at a certain time on a certain day he asked the man to read a sign 25 yards away, and he was unable to do so, that would be sufficient for him to be found guilty. When the driver came into the court the case could be argued, and if he could prove that his eyesight was adequate for him to have a driving licence, and that he was able to read a sign at 25 yards, that would deal with the matter.
I am not a lawyer, but I hope that the Clause really means that it gives the constable a right to test a driver's sight and that if the driver is unable to


read figures at 25 yards he should be open to prosecution. If the court then decided that the driver was unable to fulfil the test he should not be allowed to drive.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), supported by the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. J. T. Price), began a series of questions which I have now to answer by querying the use of the words in subsection (2):
… having reason to suspect …
I have here a long and, I hope, a fairly respectable list of precedents where this phrase, or something very similar, has been used in Statutes going back as far as the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839.
I shall not weary the House by trying to quote them all. It is a fairly well-known phrase, and it has been used a great deal in our legislation. I think that the answer to the point, which I am giving more or less "off the cuff", is that we are concerned in subsection (2) with a separate offence to that envisaged in subsection (1).
Subsection (1) makes it an offence to drive at a time when one's eyesight does not comply with the standard. Subsection (2), on the other hand, gives a constable, having reason to suspect that an offence under subsection (1) has been committed, power to impose the test. If hon. Members will look at the concluding words of subsection (2) they will see that it says:
… if that person refuses to submit to the test he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
That is a separate offence. I would have thought that whether or not the constable had reasons to suspect was an important point for the defendant to raise by way of defence if he were prosecuted for an offence under subsection (2).

Mr. S. Silverman: Would not that be putting the onus the wrong way round? If the Clause makes it necessary for the constable to have reason to suspect before he can call upon the motorist to submit to a test, it ought to be part of his duty to satisfy the court that he really had reason to suspect.
I am wondering, not as a matter of law but of practice, what kind of thing would give a constable reason to suspect

that a man could not see. One could conceive that that could arise should an accident happen, but that is something quite different. Apart from that, what would give the constable reason to suspect?

Mr. Hay: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, because he has pinpointed in the first part of his intervention the point that I was trying to make. Although I said just now that it would be open to the defendant to raise this as a matter of his defence, it would be, of course, for the court to satisfy itself, presumably on the evidence produced by the prosecution, namely, by the constable in the witness box, that he had reason to suspect.
What would be the circumstances under which the constable would have reason to suspect? The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one, where an accident takes place and the constable has reason to think that it has perhaps happened because the driver of one of the vehicles has not sufficiently good sight. There may be, for example, a case where a constable saw a vehicle being driven in circumstances which made it apparent that the driver could not see very well. He may have been acting in a very erratic way. The possibilities are numerous and we have tried to cover them.
I think that we should leave the Clause fairly wide to give the constable the power, which he has not today, of putting a driver whom he thinks cannot see properly through a simple rudimentary test at the time when the constable thinks that this is the situation. I should add, because it was a point raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Gtenvil Hall) as to the time that the test should take place, that we envisage that it would normally take place at the time when the constable had reason for suspicion, namely, at the roadside.
If it were an accident which happened at night, obviously it would not be possible for the test to take place at that time, but the Clause is wide enough to allow the test to be taken at some other time when the atmosphere or physical conditions prevail which prevailed at the time when the test was first taken, namely, when the licence was taken out. We have complete flexibility and width here and this is what we really want.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) was concerned particularly with the question of a driver whose eyesight had deteriorated either during the currency of his licence or, more likely, during a particular period of the day. I say frankly to the House that this can only be a rough and ready arrangement that we are putting forward in this Clause. It would not be possible to do anything more, unless we were prepared to commit ourselves to having very detailed and regular eyesight tests, with all sorts of scientific tests with which the hon. Gentleman is more familiar than I am, practically every day of the week. That, I think, would be going much too far.
All that we have on hand is a rough and ready test of a person being able to see a number plate at 25 yards in daylight. This is the test we propose for that purpose. If it happens that during the currency of a man's licence, which the House should remember is now three years and not one year, his eyesight has deteriorated and no longer fulfils the standard application required when he took out the licence, then the law is quite clear he suffers from a prescribed disease under a particular passage of the Road Traffic Act and that is itself ground for taking the licence away.
I have had one or two cases in my own experience of the Ministry where appeals have been made because a licence has been taken away. The situation so far as that is concerned is that if the test showed that the man's eyesight since he took out his last licence had deteriorated, the constable would be quite right in putting him through a test, and if the test showed that his eyesight was bad his licence would be taken away; and under subsection (1) an offence would have been committed as well.
It may seem a little hard if the person does not know that his eyesight has deteriorated, but I think that the number of cases in which people's eyesight deteriorates to that extent and they do not know that they cannot read a number plate at 25 yards is very small. I can imagine a situation arising in which, perhaps due to illness or a temporary breakdown in health, someone's eyesight deteriorated suddenly, but then I think

that any normal driver would notice that it was happening, would realise that something was going wrong with his sight, and would not drive. In all the circumstances, I do not think that we can go very much further than the new Clause proposes.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I do not want to weary the House with technical arguments, but I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I agree entirely with the need for drivers to have good eyesight. I also appreciate that the new Clause must be drafted to permit rudimentary tests. It is, however, astonishing, in practice, to note the number of people who are convinced that their eyesight is quite adequate and are truly astounded when they find that it is not.
I agree that if there is a sudden deterioration from good sight to really bad sight, a person of average intelligence would notice it and would seek advice, but there are many people on the borderline who can just pass the 25-yard test and whose eyesight in the course of twelve months may deteriorate marginally—enough for them to fail the test. I wonder whether we could provide them with an opportunity, in view of the deterioration, to have a check after a time limit has been set. But I reiterate that I agree that the driver's eyesight should be adequate, and I appreciate that the Clause must be drawn to permit this rudimentary test.

Mr. Hay: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member made, and which he made earlier. If there were a simple way of doing it, we should be only too willing to do it, but we face two difficulties. First, I am not sure that there is a simple way, or any way, of doing it. In any event, this is the last stage of the Bill in this House, and since it came from another place, the opportunity of amending it is non-existent

Mr. Mellish: The Bill has to go to another place, which gives another chance to amend it if the Minister wishes to look at this Clause again.

Mr. Hay: The only way in which I can see that happening would be if the House inserted the new Clause which I have moved and another place disagreed with the House in that new Clause, in


which case there would be a conflict between the two Houses and all sorts of complications would arise which I do not think any of us would welcome at this stage of the Session.
If the House will give us the Clause, we shall watch the position very carefully and if, in the course of time, it is apparent that further adjustments to it are needed, we shall take a suitable opportunity of amending the law. Equally, it is a matter which would perhaps be suitable for private legislation. But I think that there is no dispute in the House about this: we want to do something along the lines of this provision, and I suggest that we should put it into the Bill and see how it goes over the next few years. If it appears that adjustment is needed, Parliament can always intervene again. There is no party difficulty about this; it is a fairly non-controversial point. I therefore hope that the House will accept the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(DEFENCE IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HOLDER OF CARRIER'S LICENCE.)

In any proceedings under subsection (6) of section one hundred and eighty-six of the principal Act against the holder of a carrier's licence for failure to comply with the provisions of that section or of regulations made for the purposes thereof it shall be a defence to prove that he used all due diligence to secure compliance with those provisions.—[Mr. Hay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
A very similar new Clause to this was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). We had a very interesting debate on it, at the end of which I said that we would consider the discussion which had taken place and, in the light of it, decide whether to move a Government new Clause at this stage of the Bill.
I have to tell the House, as is apparent from the new Clause, that in the light of the discussion and in all the circumstances my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that we should accept

the comparatively minor principle involved. I use the words "comparatively minor" because in Committee there was some misunderstanding among hon. Members opposite about what the effect of this Clause would be. Hon. Members, quite rightly, were anxious to see that we should do nothing by accepting the principle behind the Clause to weaken the very stringent law which we have on the keeping of records of commercial vehicles. We have looked at it very carefully with those fears in mind, and we have come to the conclusion that in these circumstances they are not justified. That is why we have put down the new Clause.
May I briefly outline what the Clause does? Section 186 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, says that the holder of a carrier's licence must keep or must cause to be kept current records which show the hours of work of everyone whom he employs as a driver. At the same time, he must keep particulars, or cause particulars to be kept, of every journey of a vehicle When goods are carried. This is an absolute obligation in every respect, and the obligation is on the employer to see that the records are kept. There is also an obligation on drivers to carry the necessary documents and to make the necessary entries on those documents.
But as the law stands, if the employer were prosecuted for not complying with the statutory provision, and if it were shown that an offence had been committed by the driver even without the employer knowing anything about it, the employer would stand to be convicted because of the failure of his employee.

Mr. Mellish: Quite right.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member says "Quite right"—and that is what the debate is about. We have taken the view that in those circumstances to place or continue to place an absolute obligation and liability upon employers is a little unreasonable, and that is why we have tabled the new Clause.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro will have noticed, it differs somewhat from the new Clause which he tabled in Committee. In particular, at the end of the Clause we have used


words which I understand from the draftsmen are somewhat traditional and which I will quote:
 it shall be a defence"—
this is for the employer—
to prove"—
the obligation is upon the employer to prove and not upon anyone else—
that he used all due diligence to secure compliance with those provisions
namely, the provisions of Section 186 of the Road Traffic Act. 1960.
I emphasise that all we do here is to give an employer in that situation nothing more or less than the opportunity of raising this as a defence—of raising it in a way which is somewhat difficult in any event to prove, because he has to prove that he used all due diligence and, as hon. Members who are lawyers know, that is not an easy thing to do.
I suggest to the House that the number of cases in which this will arise— as I said in Committee—is comparatively small. Nevertheless, I think that there is a principle involved. If my right hon. Friend or myself or those who advise us thought for one moment that the effect of putting this Clause into the Bill would be to reduce the degree of observance of the law relating to the keeping of records, we should not touch it. I assure the House of that. But we have come to the conclusion that to ask the employer of transport drivers to continue to accept an absolute responsibility, to which he has no defence at all under the Statute, for the accuracy of the records kept by every one of his employees is unreasonable. It means that one would have to assume almost that the employer was at the shoulder of the employee every minute of the day when he was on duty to see that the forms were properly completed.
That is quite impossible, as we realise, and it is only fair, and certainly reasonable, to give such employers the opportunity, and it is no more than that, of raising as a defence the point that they used all due diligence to comply with the regulations. This is all that the Clause seeks to do.

Mr. Mellish: I wish to put on record that I am expressing a personal view and not necessarily the view of my party,

but I have made inquiries of the Transport and General Workers' Union, the largest union in the country representing those who drive heavy lorries, and I am assured that at no time has any employer approached the union and made the sort of complaint that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) has been able to advance in Committee to convince the Minister to bring forward this new Clause.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary regards this as a comparatively minor matter and one not to be worried about very much. I can assure him that that is not the view of those who represent the men. As I said in Standing Committee when we discussed the overall principle of keeping records, we are concerned with the minority. The vast majority of road transport employers are first class. They do their best to ensure that their men keep to the regulation 11 hours maximum a day, because it is for the benefit of the employers and the men and their families. Any man who exceeds these hours of driving a heavy goods vehicle is a danger to himself and to the community.
The vast majority of employers do not need this sort of legislation to help them. They keep the records, and keep them very well. Nor are the vast majority of employers worried about the Ministry's inspectors, of whom, unfortunately, we have not enough. They do a first-class job and I suppose that one of the reasons why we do not have enough of them is that they are not sufficiently well paid.
It is a known fact, however, that there are great abuses among a minority of employers and drivers. We are now to alter the law and say that it will be a defence for an employer that he used all due diligence to secure compliance with the law. The shrewd employer will say that he told his men to keep records. Once this is written into an Act of Parliament that defence will be accepted by the courts in the vast majority of cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is how I read the Bill. The employer will use that defence and will "get away with it." At present, it is no defence to say that it was the driver who did something or other. If a driver commits an offence in connection with hours of work the employer is also involved. This is why the vast majority of good employers


see that their drivers play the game. I honestly think, therefore, that by this proposal we are opening the door.
Has the Ministry been inundated with letters from employers about this? I do not believe it. Why not leave well alone? Why go out of our way to upset those who are doing a first-class job and who wish to co-operate with the Ministry? I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have to say that at no time did the Ministry have discussions with the trade unions on this matter, or seek their advice. The Ministry has taken the advice of the hon. Member for Truro. I am all for salving the heartaches of back benchers, but not when other people are involved in this way.
I am sure that if there were more Ministry of Transport inspectors more records would be kept and that we should have greater proof of my case to submit to the Minister. I am sorry that it has been found necessary at this stage to propose the new Clause.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I assure the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish): that the Clause was no invention of mine. This is a long-standing complaint. I moved something like this Clause not only in Standing Committee on this Bill, but on a previous Bill six years ago, and on both occasions on the advice of haulage organisations which, for many years, have complained that cases arise from time to time which seem unfair to their members.
I gave an excellent example of this not only in discussions on this Bill, but in debate on a previous Measure. It was a case where a driver who was trying to make some extra money deliberately altered his log-book and represented that he had stopped at the right time, had not exceeded the proper hours of driving, and had spent a night somewhere. He claimed a lodging allowance from his employer, but, in fact, he had driven home, thereby much exceeding the proper number of hours of driving. An employer has no means of discovering this without following his men home. The facts were admitted, but the employer was convicted.
I agree that there are not many of these cases, but there have been two or

three regularly every year over a long period. I have been told that there have been some quite recently, though not in the same circumstances, where a court has accepted that the employer had done everything that he could reasonably do to see that the regulations were kept and yet has convicted him. It is only in these circumstances that the employer wishes to take advantage of this Clause.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on going back to the words "all due diligence". I had not thought of that, but it is a phrase with which I am familiar because for a short time I was in a Parliamentary Agents' office and this is a hallowed phrase in Parliamentary draftsmanship which, I think, will meet the case admirably. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bermondsey need fear that a great number of his union employees will be prosecuted, but a few employers will have justice done to them. Nothing is more galling for a man than to be convicted, even if the conviction is nominal, in circumstances in which he feels he has a grievance and has dons nothing to merit conviction.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that this proposal makes no change whatever in the law. It will be still necessary for these records to be kept. All it does is to give the employer the right of defence in certain cases. This causes me to wonder why the horn. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) is so pleased with what has been done. One of two things will result. Either this defence will be upheld in very many cases, or else it will be a dead letter.

Mr. G. Wilson: I am pleased because there have been a number of cases in which the court admitted that there was no fault on the part of the employer, but, nevertheless, as the law now stands, the court was bound to convict.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is why I can well imagine that one union in particular is rather suspect.
In Committee, I had enormous sympathy with the hon. Member. I thought that part of his case was that it was very difficult for the owner of a butcher's or baker's van, running round the town, to keep a record of the mileage


of each journey. Quite frankly, I was in favour of abolishing that, and retaining the requirement that a record shall be kept of the hours a man works, so that the employer can be checked by the inspectors. Here, as I understand it, we are falling between two stools; we are helping neither the one nor the other.

Mr. Cole: I can tell the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) why some of us are pleased with this new Clause. It is anathema in English law that a man shall have no right to any kind of defence, and that is the present position. The position is the same in regard to a pedestrian crossing. The motorist is always at fault if the pedestrian rushes on to the crossing. I hope that one day we shall also change that state of the law.
In the present case, the employer is always wrong if his employee is convicted, and I am glad that the law is to be changed in that respect. The courts know that, in the past, the employer has always been guilty at law, and if the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) really thinks that the court will accept the employer's bare statement that he did all he could the hon. Gentleman is much more naive than I believe him to be. They will want the sort of proof to which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) referred —that the man worked longer than he should in order to get home, and yet claimed for subsistence. The courts will want to be satisfied that the log-books are inspected regularly, and so on.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey says that the members of the T. & G.W.U. may not like the law to be amended, but if a driver member of the trade union is prosecuted under the law as it now is, but knows that he has been told to break the law by his employer, why cannot he say so? It will then be for the employer to prove himself guiltless. With respect, I think that the hon. Member is making a lot of bother over something which is not the greatest issue in the world, but which puts right something that should have been put right long ago.

Mr. Ede: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in his oppo-

sition to the Clause. My experience as a magistrate tells me that here is a wonderful phrase to discuss in the magistrates' room after the employer's counsel has done his best. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) says that "all due diligence" is a phrase of which the draftsmen are very fond—

Mr. G. Wilson: Yes.

Mr. Ede: That does not impress me very much. Most of the discussions I have heard in the magistrates' room have been about just that sort of phrase.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) gave us his view of what due diligence is. I suppose that it amounts to putting up a notice in the works; impressing on a man, when first employed, that his employer expects him never to break the law at all and will not stand behind him if he does—all that sort of thing.
It has been a great protection to many employees that the law has been very severe on employers who intend to sweat their men as much as possible. I cannot believe that it would be in the interests of safety on the roads for this absolute liability on the owner to be withdrawn. I cannot accept the view that the employee can be expected to say, "I did this because the boss told me to." Any better way than that of the man asking for his cards I cannot imagine—

Mr. Cole: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that, after an employee has been charged in court, the employer, knowing that it is his employee's entire fault, will in any case keep him on in the job?

Mr. Ede: One has to have regard to the probabilities—

Mr. Mellish: That is the safeguard today. At present, the employee commits an offence of which the employer is probably not aware, but, as a consequence, both employee and employer are fined. The first thing the employer then does is to sack the man and, as a trade unionist, I think that it is absolutely right that he should. No trade union would support such a member.

Mr. Ede: That is as good an answer as can be given to the hon. Member.
The enforcement of the traffic laws depends on the willingness of magistrates to convict, and anyone who has sat as a magistrate on a bench consisting half of motorists and half of non-motorists knows how long can be the argument on the most trivial point. The words of the Clause must have some meaning. They do not say that the employer just has to be diligent; the words are "used all due diligence". The word "due" can waste quite a lot of time, just before lunch, in trying to reach a decision.
The Parliamentary Secretary is a lawyer, and a very good one, but I wonder whether he has ever sat in a magistrates' room after he has addressed the bench in some such case and found that, after they have taken half or three-quarters of an hour to decide, the magistrates give just the answer that he did not expect. That is a quite frequent experience of advocates in magistrates' courts, and they then try to work out why it happened—

Mr. Hay: It is not the advocate who tries to work out how it happened; it is the client.

Mr. Ede: Unfortunately, that is the one thing the advocate does not leave to his client; he insists on trying to find out for himself.
Our experience before the present law was enacted should make us very anxious not to reform it in the way suggested here. If the magistrates find the case proved, but it appears to them that the employee has let the employer down, they can always indicate their view by the penalties they inflict on the respective parties. I hope that we shall not accept the new Clause, because I am sure that to do so will mean a great deal of unnecessary hard work and long hours for many drivers, and will lead to other road users being exposed to the danger of tired drivers being on the roads when, according to the law, they should be off them.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Mapp: I am entirely against the new Clause. Three or four years ago it became my responsibility to look at two or three hundred work notes a day. I was not unfamiliar with what was involved, or with the ways and means by which the work notes could be in-

accurate, either by design or accident. I am not without knowledge of what it means to ensure that drivers do as the Act intends and what good employers will insist upon from day to day. If drivers on two, three or four occasions are not prepared to see the light when they have been warned that they are exceeding the 11- or 12-hour day, the employer must take the necessary action.
With all due deference to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I want to say carefully and cautiously that, with the incentive system which applies to the movement of freight on the roads, there is now a built in interest on the part of employer and employee. I want to say without much reservation that the good employee and the good employer manifestly endeavour to abide by the law. Magistrates know that in the main that type of employer and employee do not come before the courts. There are many avenues of police approach between the alleged offence and the case coming before the courts. Where the evidence in the minds of the police indicates that it was an unfortunate occurrence, the case does not reach the courts. It is only when the police and others are fully satisfied that the case has arisen from a background about which the magistrates will never know anything that the case is brought before the courts.
Only this last weekend my attention was called to a public carrier in the north of England who the weekend before last worked one of his men for 16 hours entirely against the law. I know of another instance where another member of a Government service was asked to do so but declined. We must not open the flood gates, even though this may be only a small gate. This is the kind of relaxation which ought to be made. I realise that there is a theoretical point, which the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) advanced. But it is my experience that in the main courts are not troubled with cases which have arisen as a result of an isolated occurrence or by accident. The courts are troubled with cases where the background is doubtful.

Mr. G. Wilson: I take it that as a railwayman the hon. Gentleman is thinking of cartage and delivery vehicles which are worked daily. Has he had


experience of the long-distance vehicle which is away for two or three days at a time, in which case the employer has far less chance of checking the accuracy of the log than he has with a day-to-day vehicle?

Mr. Mellish: This is the whole point of our argument. When the employer is aware that his employee may commit an offence when he is away from the depot for two or three days perhaps, it should make the employer all the more determined to impress upon the employee the necessity of keeping proper records. If that incentive is taken away, the type of employer we have in mind may well transgress the law.

Mr. Speaker: Lest this be regarded as a precedent, may I express the wish that we do not have interventions upon interventions.

Mr. Mapp: The short answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) is that even railway companies engage in road transport, and those operations are controlled. I have been an overseer at a major terminal. That point is not valid.
I suspect the origin of the Clause. The hon. Member for Truro admitted parentage. In that case I think we should treat it with great reservation. The Clause would turn the clock back, not forward, and I am unhappy about it.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): I was interested in what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said about the words "due diligence". I know from personal experience that he has many years experience of sitting as a magistrate, particularly in Surrey and at Kingston. I agree with him that these words are bad and can be improved upon. They might worry magistrates. What on earth do the words "due diligence" mean? They are just the type of words we would expect to emanate from a Government Department. I cannot remember seeing them in an Act before.
I suggest that the Government remove the words "due diligence" and say, "took reasonable steps having regard to all the circumstances of the case to secure compliance with those provisions". Magistrates understand the

word "reasonable". The words "reasonable doubt" have been bandied about in the Court of Criminal Appeal for years and people have begun to think that they might mean something. It would help if some such alteration were made to make it clearer.

Mr. J. T. Price: I support the objections which have been expressed against the Clause. However charitably-minded one might have been to redress an injustice if it can be shown to be an injustice, the fact remains that the overall effect of the Clause would be to weaken the law. There is not the slightest doubt that the law would be weakened as to the requirement to keep proper records. In contradistinction to what we did in the last new Clause in an effort to reduce danger on the roads, this Clause may increase danger on the roads. It introduces a new factor which may lead to logs and records not being properly kept.
I want to make a practical point which has not been mentioned before, otherwise I would not waste the time of the House. It is not a debating point. It is well known that any civil servant who has to enforce protective legislation always looks very cautiously at the prospect of securing a conviction before he makes a charge. This is true of the Factories Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act and all kinds of legislation with which the House is concerned.
It is not sufficient for hon. Members to ask, "Why should there be this absolute duty, to which there is no defence, on an employer to keep proper records?" Our legislation teems with absolute duties placed on employers to do all sorts of things. In support of this contention I need only quote Section 16 of the Factories Act and certain Sections of the Dangerous Drugs Act which place absolute requirements on employers.

Mr. Cole: I did not make that point. I should be the first to agree that an employer must comply with the law and keep log books. The position at law is that if on some occasion the law is broken, perhaps entirely by the employee, the employer willy-nilly is guilty.

Mr. Price: I am obliged for that intervention. I do not wish to submit


an unfair argument. We are all broad-minded enough and sufficiently aware of what takes place in the world to know that, once a gap of this kind is opened, certain people will take advantage of it. If the law is being weakened and if it is being made more difficult to secure a conviction where a conviction ought to be secured, the civil servant who has to initiate the proceedings will be less anxious and less ready to make it his charge if he knows that this defence is open. I do not believe that that is being unfair on anyone who is operating according to the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) mentioned that there might exist an unscrupulous minority of operators who will see in the Clause as "open sesame" to enter into collusion with drivers. It should be remembered that the driver will not be prosecuted, for he does not hold a carrier's licence. When an extraordinary job requires to be done a driver might be asked to do 15 or 16 hours instead of the prescribed 11, the operator saying, "We shall say that we did not give you any such instructions."
An unscrupulous employer faced with a difficult situation might be prepared to offer a sufficiently high inducement— in the form of overtime or in some other way—to a driver to break the law. To enable that to take place is bad, antisocial and against the intentions of the Bill, which hopes to increase road safety. The new Clause would weaken the Bill and tend to increase dangers on the road by causing men, perhaps in a limited minority of cases, to drive for longer hours than they should.

Mr. Hay: I must confess that I do not take quite as gloomy a view as some hon. Members opposite. As I said when I introduced the Clause, we felt that this was a fair and reasonable change to make because we do not intend, to use the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), to "open the floodgates" to all manner of contraventions of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act relating to the keeping of records. We intend only to provide a statutory defence which would be available to an employer who is charged with an offence which, at the moment, is absolute in its nature.
It is straining language to say, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, that this will be, in effect, a charter to enable the bad minority of transport employers to break the law. Let us take the case cited by the hon. Member on its face value, accepting, as I do, that the great majority of employers of road transport drivers are good people who keep the law. Let us accept that there is a small minority of bad employers. Is that any reason why any member of that bad minority who may unwittingly have broken the law should be shut out from pleading in his defence that he was temporarily not a member of that bad minority?
Let us, for example, take the case of a firm where offences take place regularly—really bad employers. Let us imagine that on one occasion the firm was not really responsible for a default. As the law stands there is absolutely no defence. Why should we deny to the sinner the opportunity we would like to give to the virtuous? I suggest to the hon. Member for Bermondsey that it is going a little too far to pretend that the affect of this is to enable all the bad employers to "get away with it". It is not that at all.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey then said that when a matter of this sort reaches the court it will be easy for an employer who has contravened the law to bamboozle the magistrates by saying that he told the driver to keep proper records. The fact that records were not kept is sad, but it is a matter for the magistrates to adjudicate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) pointed out. Magistrates are not as simple as we may be sometimes inclined to think, or to say they are. They know their job and I am sure that if they have this sort of situation before them—with an employer pleading the statutory defence and saying, "I use all due diligence to see that my men keep the law"—the magistrates will be able to sift out the cases and satisfy themselves as to whether the defence has proved that it has a defence positive.
7.15 p.m.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) raised an important matter—supported from a rather unexpected quarter, by my hon. Friend the


Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder)—regarding the phrase "all due diligence". This phrase has substantial precedents. It was used most recently in Section 113 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and in Section 156 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. Both of those Statutes offer a defence to an employer who is otherwise made absolutely liable for the act or default of an employee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood suggested that we might use a different phrase from "all due diligence". He thought that a phrase which included the word "reasonable" might help. We have deliberately kept to the phrase "all due diligence" because, if a defendant must prove that he "used all due diligence to secure compliance with" the provisions for the keeping of proper records he must show that he did not consent to what happened. That is to say, he must show that he did not know that it had happened and that it was contrary to his instructions that it had happened.
If the prosecution brings evidence to show that the employer knew, or that he must reasonably be treated as having known of a failing to keep records, then, obviously, the statutory defence of the Clause must fall. Absence of knowledge is quite beside the point. The point is that where the employer has made every effort to keep records properly and accurately—

Mr. Steele: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is bringing in something new. In his opening remarks he made it clear that it was not for the prosecution to prove that the man had not been diligent, but for the man to prove that he had been.

Mr. Hay: The prosecution produces its evidence and then, when the time comes for the defence to have its say, presumably the defence would raise this statutory defence—that the defendant did use all due diligence. It is always then open to the prosecution to cross-examine, or, in certain circumstances, to bring other evidence. This is a matter of fact. It is not a sort of general subjective exercise that the magistrates are asked to go through, almost metaphysical in its nature. The magistrates must

discover whether or not the defendant took all physical steps open to him to ensure that the law was kept.
With respect to the right hon. Member for South Shields and his extensive knowledge of magistrates' courts, I do not think that the average magisterial bench today would be in all that difficulty in a case of this kind. After all, we rely on the magistrates to use their common sense as well as such knowledge of the law as they acquire from their experience. I would not mind betting that the great majority of magistrates, faced with a case of one of the really bad minority who is trying to plead this defence, would soon see through it. This question is a matter of opinion and I cannot prove it to the satisfaction of the House. I would be prepared to leave such a matter to the good sense of the magistrates' courts.
I understand the feelings of hon. Members opposite, but I assure them that we do not think that the Clause is likely to lead to the evil consequences which some of them have said it will. We think that it is a legitimate and fair exception to make in the law, and I hope that the House will agree to it

Mr. Strauss: The House is in a real difficulty. The Parliamentary Secretary says—and we accept the logic of his argument—that there is an injustice which should be removed in that a man who has been, and can prove that he has been, in no way responsible for the commission of an offence should be entitled to plead that in court. We all accept that there is a strong argument in favour of that contention. On the other hand, my hon. Friends and the unions involved are fearful that if the new Clause is accepted it will lead to a relaxation of the present provisions which protect men from being unduly overworked.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that he is certain, and presumably his right hon. Friend is also, that the fears of my hon. Friends and the unions are not justified and that if the new Clause is accepted there will be no relaxation of the present strict provisions about the keeping of books. In these circumstances, I think that the right course for us its to say that there is an injustice under the existing legislation which


should be removed to enable a man to plead that he was in no way responsible for a breach of the law.
We accept the Minister's assurance that the new Clause will not have a harmful effect on record-keeping and consequently on the hours which employees have to work. If the unions find that this happens in spite of what has been said by the Minister, they will be entitled to go to him and say, "We accepted your assurance, but we find that your promise has not been implemented. Therefore, it is up to you to put things right".
We realise that there is an injustice, but, if the Minister's assurance is not fulfilled, we shall come down on him like a ton of bricks and demand that he puts the matter right by further legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(MOWING MACHINES AND VEHICLES CONTROLLED BY PEDESTRIANS.)

The ability to read at twenty-five yards in good daylight (with glasses if worn) a motor car number plate containing six letters and figures shall no longer be required as a condition of claiming to be subjected to a driving test in order to drive a mowing machine or a vehicle controlled by a pedestrian, nor as a condition of holding a licence to drive such a machine or vehicle.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I wish to make clear the very limited nature of the change which I seek to make in the driving licence regulations. I am not trying to pull against the general purpose of the Bill or to diminish the efforts made to tighten up the precautions to improve road safety. I would certainly be against any diminution of the standards for driving tests in general, whether it be to drive a motor car, motor cycle, tractor or even a moped.
A few minutes ago we dealt with a new Clause relating to eyesight, and hon. Members agreed that we should have tighter and not more lax precautions. I am afraid that when I raised this matter privately with the Minister

he did not understand the very limited nature of what I am trying to do. When I wrote to him, he replied that
far from easing eyesight requirements in the direction you seek, I thought that there might well be a case for tightening them up.
I should spend a little time in making clear the effect of the new Clause. It deals with only one group of vehicles out of the list in the schedule to the driving licence regulations. It deals with Group C, which relates only to mowing machines and vehicles operated by pedestrians. As the law stands, one needs a driving licence to push a motorised mowing machine and to pull a vehicle operated by pedestrians. Group C is the only group of vehicles requiring a driving licence in which the person who operates the vehicle does not ride aboard or drive it in the normal way. In the case of all the other vehicles —tractors, trolley vehicles, agricultural tractors and road rollers—one mounts aboard the vehicle and drives it. Therefore, although these are motorised vehicles, they are not motorised in the normal sense.
The relaxation which I am seeking does not apply to any motorised vehicle which a man actually drives. An anomaly in our law is that we should have put vehicles with some kind of electric battery on them or some kind of motor, however small its capacity, in with vehicles which are driven. They come under a very distinct category. The precautions required in dealing with them if road safety is to be assured should be different.
The regulations require that a man should pass a driving test to get a driving licence to operate a vehicle like this. Secondly, the requirements asked of him for passing that driving test are as far-reaching as those in respect of a man driving a Jaguar at 100 m.p.h. This is absurd. I would go further and say that we are probably unique in the world in requiring that people should have a driving licence to operate this sort of vehicle. Certainly the number of people in this country who require a Group C licence on its own, namely, a licence to operate a mowing machine or to pull a vehicle operated by a pedestrian, is very small. A Group A driving licence covers Group C vehicles as well.
As the Minister knows, my interest in this matter arises from a case which has come up in my constituency. If it were not for this, I should not have become aware of this curious group in our driving licence regulations. Many people to whom I have spoken expressed astonishment on discovering that people need a driving licence for this type of vehicle. Most people were as surprised as I was.
7.30 p.m.
It came to my attention simply because there was a young man in my constituency called David Crane who, for some nine months, with a provisional licence has been earning his living pulling a milk float on a milk round. He is a young man admirably fitted to be in charge of the vehicle in every way, except that, unfortunately, he is shortsighted. He has never attempted to get a Group A licence. He is not asking to drive a motor car, a motor cycle or even a moped. He is just asking for the chance to go on earning his living pulling a milk float round my constituency.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the hon. Lady make it quite clear that, when she says that he is pulling a milk float, it is not a thing like a wheelbarrow? It is a thing with batteries, in fact, electrically operated. It is a mechanical machine.

Mrs. Castle: I am coming to that. I have already said that it is an electric machine, and I want to put all the facts before the House. The fact remains that it is pedestrian operated. He does not mount on it and ride it. He walks in front of it, and it has a handle with which he pulls it round.
Indeed, he is such an excellent employee of this milk firm that they acquired this vehicle specially to enable them to keep him in their employment as a milkman, because they were confident that it was entirely within his capacity, and because, unfortunately he would not pass an eyesight test necessary before he could drive a vehicle. He has been pulling this vehicle round for nine months on a provisional licence. He could have run into anything during that period if he was considered to be so blind that he was a danger on the roads, but, on the contrary, he has

earned nothing but tribute from all those who have come in contact with him.
At the end of the nine months, he had to apply for a driving test. He knows his Highway Code by heart, and is very proud of the care he has taken of his vehicle and of his customers. He thought he was well off, until he suddenly found that he had to read a number plate at 25 yards, and could read it, in the event, at 21 yards only. So he has been failed, and as the regulations stand at present, he can never pull his milk float again. Indeed, the firm which has been deprived of one of its best workers, has now, out of the generosity of its heart, employed another young man to accompany him, so that this other young man, who has a general driving licence, can pull the milk float while David Crane walks at the same pace by his side, but never must he put his hand on the handle, because if he does, he will break the law.
This situation, when it burst upon the people of my constituency, struck them as being highly ludicrous, and came as a shock to them, showing how assinine the law can be, if we allow it to grow up in this illogical way. It is true, of course, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who interrupted me, wanted me to point out —and I am not trying to evade it, because it is part of my case—that the difficulty arises simply from this fact. The vehicle when loaded cannot go any faster than the boy can walk. Unloaded, it cannot do more than 3¾ miles an hour. Loaded with bottles, it cannot do more than 2 miles an hour, but, alas for David Crane, this is a vehicle with a small electric motor and battery. I have got the particulars from the firm concerned. The weight of the vehicle unloaded is 6 cwts. The battery capacity is 24 volts, and the capacity of the electric motor 24 volts and 23 amps. I am not an electrician, and I leave it to the specialists in this House to decide how recklessly dangerous this vehicle is.
The young man has been to see me and has explained it all to me. When he depresses a lever on the handle, the motor starts, but he has to pull it, because if he releases the lever and lowers the handle, the motor stops and the brakes automatically come on.


Therefore, it has to be pulled. It is really not much more than a mildly electrified barrow; nothing more than that.
In the present state of our law, if the milk company were to put a horse in front of that vehicle, and David were to sit on it and drive the horse, he would not need a driving licence, and he could be as blind as a bat. The horse, presumably, would have to read the number plate, as one hon. Member very correctly points out, and David Crane could gallop madly round the streets of Blackburn with the milk bottles jingling behind him, and the Minister of Transport would not be able to say him "Nay". [An HON. MEMBER: "No, but the horse could."]
Alternatively, David Crane could ride a bicycle round Blackburn, with milk bottles stuck on the carrier behind him. He could do a very considerable speed. I am a cyclist myself, and I fancy myself that I pedal a pretty pedal when I get going, and I get up quite a speed. Accidents can happen with bicycles. Indeed, there was a case in my constituency only on 21st June last, in which a woman was knocked down and killed by a 16-year-old cyclist. What happened was that she dithered and the boy dithered, and in the end they both went the wrong way, the woman was knocked down and she died of concussion. But if David Crane was even blinder than he is, he could ride round Blackburn on a bicycle and nobody could say him "Nay".
I put this case to the Minister, and pointed out the anomaly to him. I wrote to him privately in all sincerity and seriousness to point out to him that this case had surely highlighted an anomaly in the law that ought to be put right. To my intense disappointment, I got a most categorical refusal from the Minister which made me think that he could not have understood the Group C licence at all. I can tell him that it has also mystified people in many embassies of countries on the Continent of Europe, to whom I have spent much time explaining it.
The Minister replied:
I appreciate that there would be nothing to prevent David Crane driving a horse and cart or a bicycle. Motor drivers, however, make allowance for the fact that the driver of a horse and cart is not required to be qualified in any way, nor is he required to

hold a driving licence, whereas they would expect anyone in charge of an electric milk float to be properly licensed and qualified in every respect. And the fact for practical reasons that there are no eyesight standards for non-mechanically propelled vehicles is no argument for not applying such standards when this can be done in the interests of safety.
I know that that letter was signed by the Minister, but I very much doubt whether he read it before doing so, because there is really mot a word of seriousness in it.
Has David been a menace to safety? As it happens, included in his milk round has been the local police station. When his case burst upon the astonished world, the police of Blackburn were full of interest and sympathy. Discovering that he had served the police station, I wrote to the chief constable and asked whether any of his men when on duty had seen David doing his rounds and could tell me whether the fact that he was shortsighted made ham unfit to be in charge of the vehicle.
I received a letter from the chief constable to the effect that two of the constables in his force had seen David
operating in the town centre on numerous occasions and they report that Mr. Crane appeared to have no difficulty when operating the pedestrian-controlled and electrically operated hand truck. Neither has he been seen to cause any embarrassment to other road users. These police officers have performed traffic control duty over a long period at the Old Bank junction.
Letters began to pour in to me and to the local paper protesting about the ridiculous situation which would rob this young lad of his job. Indeed, I have a petition with 4,000 signatures that the boy has spent his spare time in collecting. At the bus station in Blackburn, he has collected the signatures of people who knew him and have seen him at work, including many bus drivers in the constituency who consider the treatment of this boy as being nothing short of asinine.
I should like to read one of the many touching letters which I have received on his behalf:
He is a grand lad and one of the best milk boys in England, never mind Blackburn. My husband and I must say he is fit to drive his little trolley because we have seen him and he is more to be trusted on the roads than anybody we know. David is like a ray of sunshine and a very understanding boy, and we got milk off him for about three years before he got moved. So I hope you can get this boy his work back and put a bit of sunshine back on the road in Blackburn.


I have a letter from the Blackburn Methodist Mission testifying unreservedly to the boy's ability to do his job.
I am told, however, that the law is the law and that no exception can be made in David's case even if the ray of sunshine has to be eliminated from the milk round. Therefore, I have seized this opportunity to ask the House in all seriousness to look at the law and see whether, without recklessly abandoning the interests of road safety, we can do something to enable pedestrian-operated vehicles to be treated separately from those that are driven about.
My new Clause is merely one way of dealing with the situation. I do not even claim that it is the best way. I merely claim that it is the most moderate. Perhaps I have made a mistake in basing it on the eyesight test, because it has raised alarm among people that I might be trying to lower eyesight standards for drivers generally. I do not want anybody who drives a vehicle to have to pass any less rigorous eyesight test. I merely ask that somebody who pushes a mowing machine or pulls a milk float should not have to be treated by the same stringent standards as somebody who drives a Jaguar on the M.1. That is not unreasonable. I suggest, therefore, in my new Clause that people in this tiny Group C, and they alone, should be exempt from the requirement concerning eyesight.
7.45 p.m.
That does not necessarily mean that there would be no eyesight standards. As I have said, David can read a number plate at 21 yards instead of 25 yards. It this basis were adopted, so that the eyesight test could be purely empirical—that is, when a boy has to have a driving licence at all, when he is subjected to his test—the instructor could decide whether his sight was sufficient to enable him to judge the speed of an oncoming car.
The ability to judge the speed of an oncoming car is fairly empirical even now under existing standards. The fact that a person can see a car coming does not necessarily mean that he is judging its speed accurately. Therefore, all sorts of general empirical judgements have to be made when deciding whether somebody is fit to be in charge of a vehicle. In this case, the boy is fit to walk about the streets pulling the vehicle after him.
If that seems a revolutionary idea, I assure the House that in both the Italian and the Dutch traffic laws no specific eyesight standards are laid down. In Holland, I am told, no official eyesight test is required even for a driving licence to drive a motor car. Other general ad hoc tests are applied.
I do not go as far as that. I am not talking about motor cars, motor cycles or mopeds. I am talking about pulling a little cart. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to deal with the matter on the basis of eyesight, I should be willing to consider other alternatives. For example, we could decide in principle tonight that no driving licence should be necessary for a pedestrian-operated vehicle. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wants some kind of safeguard concerning motorised vehicles, let us say that no driving licence would be required for a motorised vehicle below a certain engine capacity or below a certain capacity of electric motor, plus the requirement that it should not be able to exceed a certain speed.
In our existing law, we are unique. I have not been able to find any other country in which a driving licence is needed for pulling a pedestrian-operated vehicle. In Germany, it is not necessary to have a driving licence for any vehicles which cannot exceed 6 km per hour, or about 4 m.p.h. In France, no driving licence is required for a pedestrian-operated vehicle. When a milk float is actually driven by the man who rides it, no driving licence is required if the engine power is less than 1 kW. In Italy, no driving licence is required for a light motor cycle whose cylinder capacity does not exceed 50 c.c. and whose maximum speed does not exceed 25 m.p.h. In Holland, no driving licence is required.
I come now to the sober Scandinavian countries in case the Parliamentary Secretary feels that he cannot trust the precedents set by the impassioned Continentals further south. Perhaps he does not consider the Italians a good criterion. I have a letter from the Royal Netherlands Automobile Club pointing out that according to Article 101 of the Dutch road traffic regulations, a driving licence is not required for motor vehicles which cannot go faster than 20 km. per hour or for bicycles with an auxiliary engine


or for certain vehicles used for agricultural purposes. I am not asking us to go as far as the "reckless" Dutch. I am merely asking that we might bear in mind that no driving licence is required there for a pedestrian-operated vehicle.
There is also the example of Sweden. In many of our discussions about road safety, Sweden has been held out to us as a model. It has the toughest standards for drink tests, for example. I admire Sweden for it. I would welcome the most rigorous strengthening and application of the law where that kind of requirement arose. But those I contacted in Sweden were astonished at my query. The fact that we required a driving licence to drive a pedestrian-operated road vehicle caused widespread amusement in the embassies where I sought information. In Sweden a driving licence is not required for an engine-powered vehicle intended mainly as a working machine whose speed does not exceed 18 m.p.h. Even unloaded, David's trolley cannot exceed 3¾ m.p.h. In Sweden a driving licence is not even required for mopeds whose speed does not exceed 18 m.p.h. One certainly does not require a driving licence in Sweden for a pedestrian-operated vehicle.
Therefore, I ask the Minister—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has already convinced him behind the scenes following our talks earlier—to accept the Clause. If he does not wish to accept it in its present form, I hope that he will accept it in principle and give us an undertaking that he will amend his regulations and meantime give David Craine a provisional licence so that he can go back on the road and do a sensible job of work again.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I have a special interest in Blackburn. I have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and I commend it to the Minister. I am well acquainted with the Chief Constable of Blackburn, whose letter was written to the House. He is an able, conscientious and very careful man, and I feel certain that if he thinks there is no danger to the public of Blackburn from David Crane's driving of this pedestrian-operated trolley, then there is no danger.
I shall not repeat the argument so ably and almost exhaustively dealt with by my hon. Friend. I merely urge the Minister to give very serious consideration to her plea. The position of David Crane has aroused a great deal of sympathy, and also alarm, in that a boy of that age should be deprived of his livelihood and the people of Blackburn deprived of the benefit of his milk round because of a regulation which seems quite unnecessary in the circumstances of this case.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accede to my hon. Friend's request and take some steps which will restore to David Crane the job that he wishes to carry out.

Mr. Hay: I am sure that I have the sympathy of the House in trying to make, as I am bound to make, the case for the sort of restrictions that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has highlighted by her speech. It is, of course, very easy—the hon. Lady did it in a brilliant speech—to poke fun at these regulations.
It is also, of course, always very easy to find a borderline case, and the case of Mr. David Crane, the Blackburn milkman, is a borderline one in several senses of the term. He can read a number plate not at 25 yards, but at 21. He can pull a milk float, and it is so equipped that as soon as he lets go of the handle it stops instantly, and, also, it never does more than a couple of miles an hour when loaded. This is obviously a borderline case. But we have an old saying—I think that this is a perfect example of it—that hard cases make bad law.

Mrs. Castle: Oh, no.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Lady spent a long time in explaining her case, and I hope that she will allow me to explain my case without interruption before I say what my right hon. Friend would like to do about this matter.
I want to put to the House the reason why we have made it obligatory for people who are in charge of pedestrian-controlled vehicles like milk floats, mowing machines, and so on, to have a driving licence. I emphasise that it is not because the vehicle itself is dangerous. It is not the case that a milk


float going at a couple of miles an hour is a dangerous vehicle. Of course it is not. But it is a fact that if the individual in charge of it cannot see, or cannot see properly, he is himself a danger to other traffic. That is the point.
With respect to Mr. Crane, however well he may have got on in all these months, it might well be that at some time when pulling his milk float he might want to cross the road against a stream of traffic. If he cannot see properly, if he cannot judge the speed of traffic, there is at least a hazard created. That is why in the correspondence to which the hon. Lady has referred my right hon. Friend has taken the view that there was no way in which he could help here.
But, quite rightly, the hon. Lady produced a further argument and said that if Mr. Crane had a bicycle or drove a horse and cart, he could be as blind as a bat and it would not matter to anybody and nothing could be done about it. One can, of course, argue that, but the plain fact is that if we lived in a perfect road traffic or road safety world, anybody who rode a bicycle, or a horse, or drove a horse and cart would have to have a licence. But we do not live in that sort of world and it is quite impracticable to do that sort of thing.
We have to draw a line somewhere, and the line that we have drawn, for better or worse, in our road traffic law has been at the mechanically propelled vehicle. This is where Parliament has always drawn the line. It has required that a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle on the highway must have a driving licence for that type of vehicle. That is why we find ourselves in this absurd situation. But I hope the House will realise—I am trying to put our side of the argument—that it is not for any stupid reasons that we find ourselves in it. We find ourselves in it for very good reasons.
Although it is true that Mr. Crane's case is a borderline one, there could be very many cases where one would say, as a reasonable person, that, obviously, a certain man ought not to be on the road because he cannot see well enough to judge the speed of approaching traffic. If Mr. Crane cannot see a number plate at less than 21 yards, what do we do if we have a man who can see

a number plate at only 10 yards or 5 yards? Where do we stop? We must have a dividing line.

Mrs. Castle: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that his regulations are not stupid, why are they considered stupid by the traffic authorities in Sweden, Holland, Germany, France and Italy? Can he tell me of a single country in the world which requires a driving licence to be held for a pedestrian-operated vehicle?

Mr. Hay: In the light of the ticklish state of the negotiations with the European Economic Community, I had better be careful what I say about the matter.

Mrs. Castle: Answer my question.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hay: I am going to answer it.
Other countries have different rules, depending on their circumstances. In Italy, and, I believe, also in France, the moped is not considered to be a mechanically-propelled vehicle for which a driving licence is necessary, yet, as we know, mopeds there can get to high speeds. I do not suppose that the hon. Lady would argue that because France and Italy do not require moped riders to have driving licences, we are stupid, absurd, archaic and restrictionist because we require people who ride mopeds to have a driving licence. One cannot argue from the precedent of other countries in the circumstances of one's own country, and I have explained to the House why, over the years, we have consistently drawn a line at the mechanically-propelled vehicle.
I have had a word with my right hon. Friend and when the hon. Lady came to see me yesterday evening we had a long discussion about this matter. I have considered it further, and I think that what we had better do is this. It is unnecessary to have this new Clause to do the sort of thing which the hon. Lady wants. We already have powers to deal with matters of this kind by regulation, but I must tell the House that, as I am advised, our powers are not extensive or flexible enough to enable us to do precisely what the hon. Lady wants and take this category out of those with the eyesight requirement.
We are faced with the situation where all that we can do by the regulations


is either to have all mechanically propelled vehicles, including those in Group C in, or alternatively out, for all purposes. We cannot take vehicles, or some vehicles of Group C out of the category of mechanically propelled vehicles only for one purpose—the eyesight test.
We shall have to consider whether there is some way in which by the use of our regulation powers we can deal with this situation. I realise that this is a late stage of the Bill, and that I cannot go further and say that I will report to the hon. Lady and to the House at the next stage of what we are doing, but I hope that she and I can keep in touch on this point. We shall see what we can do. If it turns out that further legislation is necessary on this point, there are further opportunities for doing this, such as Private Members' Bills, in which the hon. Lady has been expert in the past.
We approach this with an open mind. We shall do what we can to get rid of nonsenses, but, at the same time, I want to leave the House and those outside who take an interest in our debates in no doubt that we consider that this statutory provision although it can occasionally lead to absurdities is nevertheless, a good one. We shall have to be careful what we do and how we do it, but we shall do what we can to help.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind what I believe is a fact, that very often people who are shortsighted, and, therefore, can be faulted in their applications for licences, are also very often longsighted and may well see a motor car some distance away and more or less decide what is its speed, but still not able to read a number plate at 25 yards?

Mr. Mellish: I think that the House would like me to put on record that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has achieved the sort of thing which most hon. Members might like to achieve now and again in this great assembly. She put up a magnificent case for her constituent. To get a chance to do it when considering a Road Traffic Bill is unique, and only my hon. Friend could have done it. Whatever else people may think about

this, I am sure that those who live in Blackburn will say that tonight a good case was made on behalf of Mr. Crane. I admire the Parliamentary Secretary for conceding that it makes the law absurd.
It is important that the hon. Gentleman should consider this further. I take his point about why this category has been included in those for which a licence is required. When we are talking about the issue of these licences, we are talking about mechanically-propelled vehicles, but since we put them into this category there have been a number of developments, and a mechanically-propelled vehicle controlled by a pedestrian is not the sort of thing which those who originally defined a mechanically-propelled vehicle had in mind.
Thanks to the ingenuity of people who invent these things, it is possible to move a tremendous weight with very little effort by the man using the vehicle. This sort of thing is seen in the dock industry, where no licence is needed to drive a fork-lift truck which can lift dozens of cases and buzz around at a tremendous speed. These trucks do not come into the category of mechanically-propelled vehicles.
Many anomalies have arisen in the last five years, and I therefore ask the Minister to look at this again before the end of the Recess. I assure him that we shall support any attempt he makes to get rid of this absurd situation. All we want is an assurance that this will be further considered. That is all we can ask for tonight, because if this were taken to a vote we could not expect the Minister to accept the new Clause. I feel sure that if we get the assurance for which I have asked my hon. Friend will withdraw the new Clause, on the strict understanding that we shall join together to look at this again at the earliest opportunity.

Mrs. Castle: I appreciate the kind things which have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), and also the concluding remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have the utmost confidence in the genuineness of his offer to see whether we can solve this problem without exposing anybody to greater risks. I trust the hon. Gentleman on that. I had realised


that he had an opportunity to do this by regulation.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think he could deal with the eyesight point without taking that requirement oust of all other categories, but perhaps I might point out that an amendment to the second schedule to the regulations, under the heading, "Requirements to be fulfilled", to remove item (1) from these requirements as far as Group C is concerned would meet my point.

Mr. Hay: I take note of what the hon. Lady says, but I have had a long experience of these things and I am astonished at the complexity of the regulations. I think that I would be very unwise if I said that that would be the right way of doing it.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: There is an old adage about where there is a will there is a way.

Mrs. Castle: The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that he and I might pursue the matter further. I thank him for his sympathetic response to my new Clause, and in the full confidence that he will keep his promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF 8 & 9 ELIZ. 2. c. 16.

Sections two hundred and thirteen and two hundred and fourteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 (in so far as they relate to payment for the emergency treatment of traffic casualties), shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new Clause is to make an Amendment to Sections 213 and 214 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, in so far as they relate to a demand for the emergency treatment of traffic casualties. This may seem a small matter, but it affects a large number of people.
The present law is that, irrespective of blame, if a person is injured by coming into contact with a motor car the owner of that car has to pay 12s. 6d. for the emergency treatment of that person.

This is an absolute obligation. For example, a person may leave his motor car parked in the road at a parking meter. A pedestrian may stumble on the pavement, fall against the oar, and injure himself. The motorist then has to pay 12s. 6d. towards the medical treatment of that person. It is a very odd provision. It dates back a long way. The probable explanation is that it was passed before there was a National Health Service, and it was thought desirable that a basic charge should be paid by anyone owning a motor car on the road, if anybody was injured, in connection with it.
It is impossible to make out any moral case for such a provision. The best that can be said about it is that it is in force, and perhaps ought to be left alone. In fact, it is not only lacking in moral foundation; it is also an absurdity in practice. It is very tiresome to collect. It has to be demanded within seven days of the occurrence, which imposes a great burden upon the administrative staff which has to collect it. I believe that it has to be demanded by registered post, and sued for as a civil debt in a county court if it is not paid, and all that sort of thing. The result is that the cost of collection is so high that virtually no margin is left to justify this procedure
I cannot see any reason why this provision should continue in force. When the Minister of Health was asked a Question about it in June, 1961, he said that it was an anachronism since the Health Service had come into force, but that legislation would be required to alter it. We now have a Road Traffic Bill. This is the occasion to alter it by legislation. I can make a very short introductory speech, because I cannot see any arguments being put forward against it.
When I introduced the new Clause in Committee it was defeated by two votes —I believe inadvertently. That is not an unfair comment, because in Standing Committees there occasionally arrive moments when Members are outside in the corridor for various good reasons, and when Divisions are called they may not know altogether what they are voting on.

Mr. Marples: Oh.

Mr. Bell: My right hon. Friend says, "Oh". I will not embarrass Shim by asking which way he would vote if he were a back bencher. I know the answer. At least it is a reasonable inference, in view of what the Minister of Health said in answer to a Question on the matter. It is still with us, and unless the House shows a general sentiment in favour of a change it will be with us for another six years or so, until we have another Road Traffic Bill, when better fortune might attend it.
When the Parliamentary Secretary went through the motions of resisting the proposal in Committee the only argument that he put up was that the Treasury could not agree to this in the then national economic situation. There is some dispute as to how much money is concerned. It could be £4,800 or £8,400. But that is the sort of figure that we are concerned with. We have to consider that against the background of the terrific waste of time that it involves. We all know how many road accidents involving motor cars occur each year. In almost every case some official has to go through all the complicated motions of claiming this 12s. 6d. within seven days from someone whose identity he must discover. It is fantastic that, at a time when it is rather important to the national economy to save manpower and to avoid entirely self-defeating operations, this strange argument should be put up by the Treasury.
I know that the Ministry of Transport has to put the argument forward because the Treasury says that it has to. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary does not think that the present national economic situation prevents the acceptance of the Clause. I hope that on this occasion the House will assert itself and proclaim that this is the greatest nonsense in the world, and that it is time to get rid of it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: In Committee, I gave some figures in support of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I do not want to go through them again, but the House ought to know something about the figures. I want to quote from an investigation carried out by a research team from the Manchester branch of

the Council of the Association of Chief Financial Officers of Hospitals. The investigation was carried out in 1958–59 and the figures show that the average cost of collection of these fees amounted to 89·5 per cent. of the amount collected. That meant that there was only a 10·5 per cent. profit—if one can call it that —from the collection of these fees.
In an average case, the fees for emergency treatment totalled £82,000 a year and the cost of collection was £73,000, leaving a slight profit of £9,000. But that was only the average case. In many hospitals the cost of collection was over 100 per cent. of the amount collected. In 37 out of 127 hospitals investigated the cost of collection was over 100 per cent. of the amount collected, so that it was a dead loss. In 21 other cases the cost was between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. of the amount collected. Hospitals should be relieved of having to collect fees when it means that they are involved in a dead loss.
Every year there are about 200,000 claims. One can imagine the administrative work involved. No less than 10 per cent. of the claims have to be written off. But hospitals still have to initiate these claims and go through the motions of writing off about 20,000 claims a year. The position has become quite farcical. I (hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter reasonably and relieve hospitals of this administrative burden.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I congratulate my 'hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on raising this point. I do not know whether anybody has calculated the number of man-hours spent by the clerical staffs of hospitals trying to collect the money. We have heard that there are about 200,000 claims each year. Surely each one must take 20 minutes or half an hour to initiate in the proper form. Then somebody must posit the claim. That takes another five minutes. Probably there has to be another application later on, and then there is the collection of the registration forms. I suppose that altogether about 500,000 man-hours are absorbed each year. If we want to become a wealthier nation, we must, I think, cut out some of this wastage of time and money.

Mr. Marples: I must toll my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) that the number of man-hours wasted is very small. It may toe that the number of "woman-hours" wasted is higher, because clerical staffs are mainly composed of women. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) moved his Motion in a reasonable way and I appreciate his point of view. He said that irrespective of who was to blame, the motorist had to pay 12s. 6d. He said that he would not embarrass me by asking me which way I would vote were I on the back benches. I will not embarrass my hon. Friend by asking him which way he would vote were he on the Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is very skilful. He referred to the high cost of collection. He said that the gross revenue was £100,000, and probably 90 per cent. of that sum was spent on collecting. That is a powerful point. But it is not only the hospitals which receive money under this legislation. Individual doctors receive payments under the provisions of Section 213.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely if it costs some hospitals over 100 per cent. to collect, it would cost the doctors a lot more.

Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe anything. He can take it from me that a doctor, acting with a secretary, can collect debts much quicker and much more cheaply than can a hospital employing a large staff. There is no doubt that an individual collecting his own debts is much quicker on the ball. He gets the money in more cheaply. I think I take the whole House with me on that. Once a bureaucracy is engaged it is difficult. What the doctors receive is not known. But a calculation based on accident statistics suggests that the gross figure is also in the region of £100,000 a year. I believe that the costs of collection are very much less—

Mr. Ronald Bell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend may disagree, but I am told that the amount received by them is much greater than the amount received by the hospitals.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The doctors would have to go through the same procedure in order to collect the money. They would have to find the name of the motorist and claim the money by registered post within seven days. They axe faced with the same difficulties, and it is probable that they write off an even higher proportion of these debts than the hospitals.

Mr. Marples: The interest of the doctors would be greater. They would lose by not collecting these sums. A clerk employed by a hospital has not the same incentive to collect as a doctor would have. I am certain that my hon. Friend would agree that a doctor would be very much on the ball when it comes to collecting cash.
This is an evenly balanced argument and sooner or later what my horn. Friend desires will, I think, come about. But I should not like that to happen tonight. On another occasion it may well happen. Under Section 213 of the 1960 Act the user of any motor vehicle involved in an accident has to pay a fee of 12s. 6d. plus an emergency allowance to any doctor or hospital if first-aid is rendered. Section 214 of the Act contains a special provision about the way in which claims by the hospital should be made and recovered.
There are two points to be borne in mind. First, by virtue of the provision in Section 203 (2, b) of the Act, the user of a vehicle must be covered by insurance. Drivers are not required to settle claims out of their own pockets. It is done by an insurance company. The second point is that if a user has paid a charge and someone else is responsible for the accident, he may recover the amount from that person under the provisions of Section 213 (3) of the Act.
When he moved this Clause in the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire South was defeated. I have a lot of sympathy with him and I will not deny it, but I hope that at this late stage in the proceedings he will not press this Motion.
There would be a number of repercussions. It is not only the loss of income to the National Health Service which would arise under the Clause but the fact that acceptance of it would


endanger a much larger sum, approaching £½ million—£400,000 net—paid by insurers under the related Section 212 of the Act, for treatment. Under that Section insurers are required to pay a maximum of £50 for in-patient treatment or a maximum of £5 for out-patient treatment.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this new Clause because there could be very grave repercussions. It is not a big matter because we are considering road safety as distinct from the cash involved. I should like to consider this question in whatever legislation is introduced by the Department another time. I ask him not to press this matter now certainly because I do not think that a case has been entirely made, but principally because of the repercussions which would follow. I have tried to give the proposal sympathetic treatment. I hope that is sufficient to enable my hon. Friend to withdraw his Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sure that we all sympathise with the object which the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has in mind. We discussed this in Committee and, looking back to the 1960 Act and having listened to the debate then and what the Minister has said tonight, I think most of us would agree that this is not the time nor the way to make this change.
These payments have ceased to be of the value they used to be. The value of money has gone down. Obviously it will go down even further in the next year or so if this Government last for so long. Even if we put in figures now or made changes now they would probably be out of date very soon. Therefore I hope that the House will agree with what the Minister has said and pass on to the next new Clause, leaving this to the appropriate time when proper legislation covering the whole question can be introduced.

Mr. Ronald Bell: With the permission of the House I speak again. In answer to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) I should point out that this is not a question of the amount of the sum but of the fact that the charge itself is an irrelevance. Now that there is a National Health Service

it has no meaning. Even if the amount were doubled or trebled it would not be—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The medical practitioner who now gets 12·6d. under the 1960 Act is entitled to something even though we have the Welfare State and the National Health Service.

Mr. Bell: He gets something out of the National Health Service. I think that there is general consent that this kind of charge ought to go. It is an absurdity. The cost of collection is disproportionate to anything which might be yielded by it.
However, one has to be practical and there is no point in taking this matter to a Division unless it would be carried. From sundry indications I gather that it would not be carried. I am also persuaded by what the Minister said that he will do something about it next time round. I might even have a go myself before next time round.
In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause. by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(REPEAL OF s.1. OF 8 & 9 ELIZ, 2 c.16.)

Section one of the Road Traffic Act, I960 (causing death by reckless or dangerous driving), is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this new Clause the House may discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member in the Fourth Sohediule, page 47, line 10, column 3, at the beginning to insert "Section one".

Mr. Bell: This is a proposal to strike out the Section of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, constituting the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. That Section and that offence were new in the 1956 Road Traffic Act. Until then we had the offence of driving without due care and attention; then the more serious offence of driving to the danger of the public or recklessness, and, finally, the offence of manslaughter, which might


be defined as causing death by a degree of negligence which was wanton.
8.30 p.m.
There were other refinements. The Lord Chancellor at the time told us that there were six separate degrees of negligence in driving before this Section was introduced. This makes seven. Broadly, the categories were the three that I have mentioned. The new offence of causing death by dangerous driving was introduced in a deliberate attempt to increase the number of convictions for manslaughter. That, broadly speaking, was the intention.
Juries were reluctant to convict motorists of manslaughter. To do so they had to be satisfied that there was a degree of recklessness or wanton negligence which had caused the death. It is a fact, fortunately, that on the roads at the present time—and indeed then—there are not many cases of wanton or reckless driving. Unfortunately, there are many cases of carless driving, of driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public, but there is not a great deal of what one might cynically call negligent driving. On the whole, people who drive are ordinary human beings, good family men; but, somehow, in a motor car they do not always quite live up to their own standards. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will be content with that definition.
I think that juries were right in deciding that on the whole they did not want to send a man to prison for bad driving. It is not a natural and appropriate punishment for the sort of misjudgment that people make on the roads. For that reason, juries were rather reluctant to convict. I do not find fault with the juries for that; I think that they were right.
This offence was introduced in the 1956 Act to get more convictions. My objection is that it introduced a much heavier punishment—five years' imprisonment and automatic disqualification for the first offence because the dangerous driving resulted in a death. Let me make it clear that the standard of negligence or of error of judgment is no higher in this offence than it is in the offence of dangerous driving; it is identical. The offence is that of causing death by dangerous driving. If one is merely—

I say "merely" by contrast with the offence that I am trying to abolish— guilty of dangerous driving than one is, of course, subject to a smaller maximum penalty; there is no automatic disqualification until the second offence. One can be fined and almost always is fined. If, unfortunately, what one does results in someone being killed, one is in very great danger indeed of going to prison and will be automatically disqualified, often for a very long period.
There is no logic whatever about this. In our law we do not punish people by reference to the consequences of their wrongful act. I hope that nobody does that in any law. Originally that was done; in our early history people were punished strictly according to the consequences, without regard to the intent. Attempts were not punished at all, because the consequences had not ensued. Attempts to murder were not punishable unless one did some injury to the person at the same time, and then one was punished for that. Intent did not matter until the Second Statute of Westminser. Originally society looked only to the outward results, but as people grew more civilised and more subtle they tried to punish according to the degree of wickedness or guilt. That has been the progressive development of our law— always in that direction.
But suddenly, in 1956, we did a 180 degree turn and went back in a purely recidivist way to punish people not according to what they had done wrong but according to what had chanced to happen. If one drives dangerously and strikes a young person and injures him, one is charged with dangerous driving and gets the average treatment, whatever it is. If one strikes a very old and frail person, and on falling he fractures his skull and dies, one is likely to find oneself in one of Her Majesty's prisons, as well as being automatically disqualified from driving.
That is a monstrous situation. I protested bitterly against it at the time, as did the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) all through the Committee stage and on the Floor of the House. I told the right hon. Gentleman that I should quote what he said on that occasion, but I need not do so because he is here. I think that he will agree that foe said that it was a grave mistake.


We were overborne because of this passionate desire to get convictions against motorists.
I am as much opposed to bad motorists as is anybody, and I want to see them punished appropriately and convicted where they should be convicted, but I do not like this bludgeoning approach, "We are going to get them and to punish them severely and not look too closely at the methods by which we do it." I regard this as a thoroughly bad development. I do not want to make a long speech, but I hope that I have made the point and that others on this side of the House will express their opinions on it and say whether we should now get rid of this provision.

Mr. C. Royle: I am so often in disagreement with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that I feel almost like apologising for supporting him. A very serious matter is involved in this new Clause, and the House ought to give it serious consideration.
This is the kind of case in which a man may be either lucky or unlucky in what happens to him for exactly the same offence. If he drives recklessly or dangerously and knocks down a robust person who recovers reasonably easily from the accident, he does not submit himself to all the serious consequences of the law. But if he knocks down an old person who dies following the shock of the impact, the motorist meets the full consequences of the law. This seems to me quite unfair in law and in practice. The crime is no worse because someone has been killed as a result of the accident. The crime is bad because the driving is reckless or dangerous. The fact that death ensues does not make it a worse offence. It is merely a case of being unlucky.
When we discussed the terms of the main Act there were debates about this question and great problems arose in people's minds. Anyone who is involved in the administration of the law in higher circles must be seriously concerned about the implications of what is suggested in the First Schedule. I therefore hope that the Minister will have another look at this question and will ensure that the question of how the law and its penalties shall apply will not be

a matter of luck. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South has something here to which the House should give serious consideration. I hope that we can persuade the Minister to look at the question again.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), I hope that the House and the Minister will look favourably upon the new Clause. I think that I can say that many people who practise at the Bar in the criminal courts regard this as one of the most unsatisfactory provisions on the Statute Book. I hope that the Minister will have the courage to accept the new Clause, or at least to agree to look at it further. I say "courage" because it will need courage.
The Section was enacted to give way, as I would suggest, to somewhat primitive and retrograde feelings; and it is a somewhat primitive and retrograde enactment. It creates a criminal offence which, as far as the nature and quality of the act is concerned, is identical with another less serious offence, namely, the offence of dangerous driving, but which is made a more serious offence depending solely upon a chance result which was never intended and which might have no relation to the degree of gravity of the offence itself, namely a resultant death.
All of us who practise in the courts know of cases where people have been convioted of the more serious offence in what has been a borderline case of dangerous driving at the bottom end of the scale—something about which one might have grave doubts whether it was dangerous driving at all and where, if death had not resulted and the person had been prosecuted in a magistrates' court, he would have got off on a dangerous driving charge and would have been convicted of careless driving. But on this charge he goes before a High Court. The case is tried not even at quarter sessions, but at the assizes, with the full panoply of an assize trial. The jury, knowing that death has resulted, and of the slaughter on the roads, naturally has a strong inclination to convict.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has said, that the historical reasons


why the House first enacted this was because of the reluctance of juries to convict people of manslaughter. There was, of course, a stigma attaching to the very word "manslaughter" which made people reluctant to convict somebody of manslaughter for what was really a piece of dangerous driving and little more. And the legal definition of manslaughter was such that it had to be shown that a person was driving in a manner which showed a wilful or reckless disregard of the safety of others. This, again, was another reason why juries were reluctant to convict.
8.45 p.m.
I do not think it right to say that juries are reluctant to convict on this offence, nor are they reluctant to convict on dangerous driving alone. The only effect of accepting the new Clause would be that persons who did commit the offence of driving dangerously, and death resulted, could, and should be prosecuted on indictment. They could go before a jury—at present, the case would probably go to quarter sessions— and be tried for dangerous driving, the identical offence in respect of the nature and the quality of the act as the offence in the Section. If convicted, they could be given a suitable penalty.
People can be, and are, sent to prison for up to two years when convicted on indictment of dangerous driving. For the offence in the Section, which is the more serious one for the illogical reasons that have been outlined, a person can be sent to prison for five years. He is also automatically disqualified for at least one year unless there are special reasons for not doing so—and it is very seldom that, in law, there is anything that amounts to special reasons. In practice, therefore, people get, first, a more serious penalty, and, secondly, the stigma attaching to what appears to be a more serious offence, but which is really a chance result of their offence.
Again, those of us who practise in the courts know that there are very bad cases of dangerous driving where death does not result and which happen to be first offences, as a result of which there is a relatively light sentence—much lighter than anybody is likely to get who is convicted of this present offence.
Those are the illogicalities attaching to this Section, which the new Clause

seeks to abolish, As I say, it will need courage to accept the new Clause, because it will look to the public as though, in some way, one is condoning dangerous driving and condoning causing death on the roads by dangerous driving. That would be a complete misunderstanding; one is doing nothing of the sort. People who do kill by dangerous driving can be, and still are, convicted of dangerous driving and, if necessary, they are sent to prison.
If it is thought that two year's imprisonment is not enough, let us increase the sentence for dangerous driving, but do not let us continue the invention of this new offence which itself offends against the principle that the gravity of the offence should depend on the nature and quality of the act itself, and not on its result. Under the existing law, a person who kills as a result of wanton driving, and a wilful and reckless disregard for the life and safety of others, can be charged with manslaughter, and still is, but that is rightly reserved for the worst cases of all.

Mr. Ede: I always get very suspicious when lawyers start talking about the illogicality of the law. I have never been so oppressed by that argument as I was when, towards the end of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) got into a "spirit of logic" by suggesting that what is now regarded as the minor offence should carry the same penalties as that which he is attempting to have removed from the higher offence. I suppose that is one of the ways out.
I recollect that immediately after the war, I was approached by the judges with regard to the maximum penalty for attempted rape, and I brought in a Bill to raise it. A very distinguished legal friend of mine, no less a person than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), said that nobody ought to be punished for attempted rape because nobody set out to commit that crime. We can become involved in this kind of illogicality alleged by some lawyers with regard to the outcome of the profession in which they practise and the most absurd things can be said.
The number of deaths on the road is still far too high. We hear from judges, Ministers and others about the way in


which the law has so far been unable seriously to reduce the toll. This penalty was introduced a few years ago to mark the feeling the House had about any action on the roads that caused death. Has there been any agitation on the part of the general public to indicate that we have readied a stage where anything that emphasises the detestation that good citizens ought to feel about the toll on the roads should be relaxed? I do not think that there has been. I am surprised at a Clause of this nature being put before the House at this stage.
If the Clause were accepted it would be taken by the general public as indicating that the House feels that the behaviour of motorists is now such that we need not enforce this heavy penalty. Except the one instance I have mentioned, I do not think I have known of a previous case of this nature, although there have been plenty of instances in which penalties have been reduced.
I cannot believe that anyone will say in the House tonight that, if the Clause were accepted, the general public would believe that we are sincere when we deplore the number of casualties on the roads. I understood that the Bill is merely directed at impressing on the public—not merely on motorists, but on the general public—out belief that the standard of conduct on the roads is not yet so high that we can afford to reduce any of the penalties that have been provided by previous Parliaments.

Mr. Marples: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) because he has a great knowledge of this type of offence which he has acquired in the high offices he has held, such as Home Secretary. I should make it clear from the beginning that the Section to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) objects is not a creation of mine. It is not in this Bill. It is already on the Statute Book. It seems that the Bill I am trying to get the House to accept has proved to be a vehicle for my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South to complain of deficiencies in something which I am not proposing. I should explain that my hon. Friend wishes to alter something that was passed by the House in 1956 and is existing law.
I can assure the right hon. Member for South Shields that there has been no agitation at all by the public. I have received no letters from anyone. There has been no pressure or demand to alter the provision in question and I wish to make that quite plain. I have not received a single letter.
I now come to the merits of the Clause. It is suggested that the consequences of whatever happens are not really important and that if a man does something, crosses a red light or something similar, it does not matter whether he hits someone—whether he kills, wounds or does not wound someone— because the offence is the same. It is purely a question of degree. If I had a revolver—and sometimes in this House a revolver at the Dispatch Box would be a useful implement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if I pointed it towards the door leading to the Chamber— [Interruption.] I did not mean to indicate that I was pointing it at hon. Members opposite. I was merely seeking to inquire whether if I aimed it in that direction and killed six people my crime would be greater than had I missed altogether and merely hit the lights?
The Section under discussion was introduced in 1956 and created a new offence. It was then proposed by the Attorney-General in an attempt to overcome difficulties which had arisen because of the reluctance of many juries to convict on a charge of manslaughter in motoring offences. This reluctance was, no doubt, due in part to the feeling of juries that however recklessly someone might have driven, the person did not set out with the intention of hurting anyone and in part to the warning which must be given to juries that they must be satisfied that the accused was guilty of a high degree of negligence.
It is interesting to note what happened after that Section was introduced. In 1953, for example, the figures for the number of charges of motor manslaughter were 62 charges and 12 convictions, 29 of those charges being reduced to dangerous driving. In 1954 the figures were 57 charges and 13 convictions; in 1955 they were 62 charges and 12 convictions; and the more recent figures following the passing of the Act


were, in 1959, 345 charges and 228 convictions, and in 1960, 405 charges and 257 convictions.

Mr. MacDermot: Would not the Minister agree that there would be just as high, if not a higher, percentage of convictions if there wore a charge of dangerous driving as opposed to this new offence of causing death by dangerous driving?

Mr. Marples: I do not think so, because when the Government of the day decided that causing death by dangerous driving merited automatic disqualification—and it has been argued this evening that that is illogical—the existence of a separate offence attracting substantially higher punishment shows that the law takes into account the consequences as well as the quality of the dangerous driving. We cannot escape the fact that nearly 7,000 people are killed on our roads each year.
There are parallels elsewhere in the law. So far two lawyers, a magistrate and an ex-Home Secretary have addressed the House. I do not have their qualifications legally and I confess that straight away. But I am advised by the Law Officers that there are parallels elsewhere in the law. The same principle applies in the general criminal law of offences against the person. I think that the argument advanced by hon. Members who are lawyers was that this was illogical. In that case, I point out that it applies elsewhere in the law. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is greater than that for unlawful wounding. Why?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Since my right hon. Friend has asked, I will tell him. The answer is that this was an historical development. Originally, all crimes were punished according to the consequence. This is a progressive development by which one looks at the intent instead of at the consequence. The instances which my right hon. Friend is putting forward are based on the ancient history of our law. They are not very good precedents for future developments.

Mr. Marples: The conscience of the ordinary man who is not a lawyer would be outraged if one did not take into

account the consequences of what was done. It would be intolerable if it were thought that it is just as bad for a man to shoot at and kill about six people as it is for him to shoot at an open space. I have not heard such nonsense in my life. I am not a lawyer, but I will not accept that from my hon. Friend or from anyone else.
As I say, the maximum penalty for manslaughter is greater than that for unlawful wounding, although it may be a matter of chance whether the act of wounding causes death and the degree of blame attaching to the offender may be the same.
This is not a fresh power which I am asking the House to give me. It has been going since 1956, and I am told by the Law Officers that it has worked reasonably well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South will not use the Bill which I am trying to get through as a road safety Measure as a vehicle for altering something which is just as it stands. I am fortified in that view by the right hon. Member for South Shields. The consequences of what a man does must be taken into acoount and cannot be ignored. I am sure that that would be the verdict of any ordinary man.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said that I took the line which he is taking by opposing this provision in the law when the 1956 Bill was before the House. That is true. I was very doubtful then whether this provision was logical or realistic. I am still doubtful. I agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) and Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). I am confirmed in this by the opinion expressed to me by a number of people in the legal profession, who say that this provision has worked most unfairly in a number of directions.
Whether that is so or not, one thing which is certain is that at this late stage of the Bill we cannot alter an important part of our legislation. Whatever the merits of the proposal, it would be exceedingly difficult at this stage to reduce any penalties. It would be a bold Minister of Transport who did that, and to make a fundamental alteration in the law at this very late stage without it


having been discussed in Committee would be quite impossible. If we are right in saying that the present law is illogical, we must nevertheless be prepared to put up with it for a great deal longer.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am disappointed by my right hon. Friend's reply. I do not think that it lived up to the arguments put forward in support of the new Clause. There is a serious case for this new Clause and it should not be disposed of by somewhat casual and humorous treatment.
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said. I am to blame for not dealing with this matter in Committee, but the Committee stage was getting rather long and it seemed that we would be in danger of losing the Bill if it went on any longer. None of us wants to lose the Bill, because it contains valuable provisions.
I thought 'that it was important to have a debate on this matter on Report, or on some stage of the Bill, because I believe that this point has to be kept alive and has to be watched. I hope that before very long the change in the law which I was advocating a little while ago will be made. I think that it is a fair point that this is a rather late stage of the Bill to put it forward, and for that reason, and for no other, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(TRAFFIC REGULATIONS INJURIOUSLY AFFECTING PROPERTY.)

The Minister shall not exercise any of his powers (under this Act or under the principal Act or under the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960) for the regulation of traffic, either in direction or speed, so as injuriously to affect any interest in land abutting upon a road which is intended to be the subject of such a regulation until the draft of an order exercising such power has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The intention of this Clause would be to oblige my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to bring before the House certain traffic regulations which

he wishes to make, namely, the kind of regulations which would be injurious to property, to the amenities of the neighbourhood and to the value of property in the neighbourhood. Frequently, when the Minister desires to make new roads or road improvements, he has to acquire land to do so. In those cases, compensation is paid to the owners of the land taken. This is not the sort of case with which I wish to deal in this new Clause.
I wish to deal with those cases where there is no compensation, but in which some new traffic regulations have been made and have injured those whose property abuts on the road and there is no compensation for it whatsoever. In the Bill, as in recent Road Traffic Bills, powers have been given to the Minister to make traffic regulations without any veto from the local authority or from individuals who may be injured by them —regulations which may entirely alter the character of a road, and, therefore, the character of the neighbourhood through which that road runs.
My right hon. Friend rightly deems it his duty to improve the flow of transport. He is the Minister of Transport, and I well appreciate that it is his job to provide for the speedy carriage of both goods and persons on the roads. He is anxious to do that unhampered by objections from any particular locality, and to achieve that uniformity in the flow of traffic perhaps through a number of localities. I submit that that should not take priority over every other consideration.
Those people who have to cross the roads on foot have rights, and, frequently, when new traffic regulations, such as one-way regulations, clearway streets, higher speed limits, and so on, are imposed, they may turn a shopping district into a fast one-way traffic lane without any adequate provision for maintaining the rights and amenities of the shops, the commercial buildings, the offices and the residences which abut on that street. Such regulations may cut a community in halves, with serious results to businesses and residences. That may happen not only by the one-way restrictions which my right hon. Friend can impose, but also by removal of speed limits, and so on.
We have had recent examples which have been mentioned in the House. I


see the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) in his place. He has an example of this in his own constituency, in which long-distance traffic—heavy lorries— have been routed through a narrow residential street of terraced houses, entirely altering the character of that street and creating a terrible result. In that street, which was a quiet residential street, ceilings are falling, there is the stink of diesel fumes, there is the vibration and the noise of all the heavy traffic, and the ruin of radio and television sets and all the normal household amenities, to say nothing of the terror to mothers who would allow their young children out on that road, which is now a main lorry route and was once a quiet residential road. There is no compensation whatever for this. That we allow this and sometimes even praise it as being such a great improvement in the traffic flow is a callous disregard of the home lives of many individuals.
If the local authorities are to be deprived of the right of comment on this matter, as they are under the Clauses of the Bill, the House of Commons should reserve for itself the right at least to debate the matter and to consider regulations of this sort which my right hon. Friend has power to make, because they harm not only the property of individuals—residential, shopping and offices—but, in many cases, they are a great danger to buildings which are providing social services and in which other Government Departments are involved.
My right hon. Friend would hardly expect me to make a speech of this sort without bringing Highgate into it. His proposed lorry-way through High-gate is a good example of the sort of case I am trying to put. There, other Government Departments and the social services are concerned. To reroute heavy lorries up Highgate Hill one-way will be running them through a very large hospital, past several nursing homes and past seven schools. In all these things, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and other Government Departments are concerned. I might even mention the Postmaster-General, too, because old people have to cross roads to get to post offices to get their pensions. If a lorry-way of this nature is routed through a village, the

community on one side of the road will be cut off from that on the other.
One Department so affecting another should come to the House if traffic regulations of that sort are to be made. Such powers vested in one Minister can be oppressive when they can be made without reference to the House of Commons, without the local authority having any right of audience to make its voice heard about such regulations and without any appeal by the individuals, who may suffer, either to the courts or to any ministerial tribunal. An individual's property may well be seriously devalued and his life made hell by some of these traffic regulations.
This is, perhaps, the first opportunity for the newly-shaped Government to create a good image by showing their concern for the individual and for the ordinary man in a case of this sort as against the big, commercial interests, the road transport interests and transport union interests. I am sure that any Government which considered the individual interests in cases of this sort and which recognised the real priorities would quickly gain the great confidence of the nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am seriously putting my argument as high as that because when these traffic routes are created there is a lack of sense of value and a lack of sense of the rights of the individual to his amenities, his comforts and his home life.
In many cases where there have been traffic regulations of this sort, homes have become uninhabitable—quite apart from the reduction in value of the property— and that is putting our values all wrong.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Cole: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for a number of reasons other than those which he mentioned.
I know that my right hon. Friend will ask—and I do not blame him for doing so—"Who will define 'injuriously'?" However, this at least gives hon. Members an opportunity to point out to the Minister the curious effect of some of his regulations and will open the possibility of an Order being laid before the House.
I am entirely with my right hon. Friend in his desire to make traffic move more quickly and more safely. That is


one of the main objects of his life, and I commend him for it. But we must remember that half the people of this country, if not more, have no private motor vehicles in their possession. Also motorists who are at home are not motoring, and they have a right to peaceful enjoyment of their houses. I think that we are sometimes in danger—I know I am, because I am as keen as anyone—in putting too much emphasis on movement and speed of road traffic and too little emphasis on people enjoying the peace and quiet to which they are entitled in the houses which they have bought. The Clause should do something to redress the position.
We have a precedent for this. My night hon. Friend knows to his cost that when one lays down a line of route one opens the field, legally and statutorily, 10 objections, and they take a long time to deal with in view of the public inquiries and the rest. There is very little difference between the present case and that one. It is a matter of taking an ordinary private road or commercial road and turning it more or less into a lorry or vehicle highway of a quite different character.
The two cases are very similar. If my right hon. Friend objects to bringing something before the House in this respect, I cannot see the logic of the argument. Why should it be regarded as an arbitrary act in respect of existing roads if it is not considered arbitrary in the case of a line of route? I am pleased to know that in this democratic country it is not done arbitrarily in the latter case. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Clause, and not regard it as an arbitrary act in this respect.
I know that my right hon. Friend will point out that this is not "a regulation". It is a suggested route—one-way northwards and one-way southwards. I am aware of that. But what will happen if the proposal works from the point of view of traffic? It may well work; I agree that it is a good idea. The only thing to do then is to turn it into a regulation. The best way to make the route work is to ensure that a few cafes are provided along it; it will work then. The responsibility for this rests on my right hon. Friend, because he has been entirely responsible for the suggestion.

No one else in the House officially has had anything at all to do with it.
I know that we give the Executive powers to carry out things itself. But why should not the Executive at times accept a little assistance from the House and let our shoulders also bear a little of the brunt of what is done? If my right hon. Friend wants to do something which will be unpopular at the moment, but which will, in the long run, be for the good of the community, even the motoring community, and industry, why should he refuse assistance which will enable him to point to the fact that the House of Commons, either unanimously or after a Division, passed a law? I can see no objection to it.
I presume that my right hon. Friend will turn the Clause down. He seems to have that look about him. I hope that I am wrong. However, it seems to me that it need not hold up his plans in the slightest. We deal with many Orders in the House from time to time during the day, generally after 10 p.m. Why should we not have this sort of thing also in an Order or Motion in one form or another to be brought before the House? I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept what is suggested. There are good precedents for it. It is something to which we ought to give serious consideration.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to my two hon. Friends for raising this matter. I start by dealing with the Highgate Hill problem which, I think, was the reason for this Clause being moved. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), because he lives in Highgate Hill and has an interest in this, but I live on the South Circular Road, close to traffic lights, and I have as much traffic going past my house as my hon. Friend will have on Highgate Hill. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has as much trouble in his constituency with trucks going into residential streets and starting up in the early hours of the morning and making a noise by slamming doors, and so on, as any other hon. Member in this House.
The real point is that once we have the internal combustion engine developed to the degree to which it has been developed in this country somebody


somewhere is bound to get hurt. Everyone says to the Minister of Transport, "Make the traffic flow smoothly and swiftly, but not in my street. That is reserved for me." This goes on all the time. The Minister of Transport cannot win. He is doomed to failure. I assure the House of that.
By the 1960 Act, the House gave me powers to run London's traffic instead of it being run by 28 Metropolitan boroughs, three county councils and four county boroughs. The hon. Member for Bermondsey will remember that I had a default Clause in the Bill. I hope that I shall never use it. I have tried my best not to use it, and so far I have not done so. I prepared and initiated a scheme and put it forward as a proposal. I kept an open mind. I listened to objections and to alternative suggestions. I considered every one most carefully before making a decision about what to do with the traffic. I then experimented for six months and at the end of that time, I altered it if I thought that I was wrong.
I do not think that in a democracy there can be any more safeguards or better procedure than that. That is what I propose to do in Highgate and in Oxford Street, and what I did in Tottenham Court Road and Gower Street where they told me that traffic would go so fast that more pedestrians would be injured and killed. The traffic went twice as fast and accidents to pedestrians were 30 per cent. less, and I am grateful for that.
Every scheme that I have put forward under that Act I have given first to the local authorities, the London Transport Executive, the traffic commissioner, the various trade and transport organisations, namely, the A.A., the R.A.C., the Trades' Road Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the National Chamber of Trade, the Joint Committee of the Cab Trade and the Pedestrians' Association, and it has been in the local and national Press. I have seen deputations of schoolteachers and headmasters of various schools. They have made alternative proposals and I have examined every single one exhaustively.
At the end of the day somebody, somewhere, has to make a decision, and

it must be from the centre, and that is the Minister of Transport. If my hon. Friend has any alternative suggestion to make about Highgate, perhaps he will let me have it quickly. If it will do the job I shall be glad to accept it. I merely want to keep the traffic moving. That is all. I want to help wherever it is necessary, be it Highgate or Oxford Street, or anywhere else.
I hope that I can convince the House that there has been an honest attempt to keep traffic moving and to reconcile it with the rights of property owners. As I said, I live on the South Circular Road, with lots of traffic going by, and my ceiling has not fallen in. As a builder my hon. Friend cannot tell me that a ceiling falls down because traffic goes by on the road. There is something wrong with the ceiling, not with the traffic. I am prepared to look at any of the houses to which my hon. Friend referred. It is a rottenly-built house if that happens. I have great affection for my hon. Friend, although the House might not think so.
The Clause would have the effect of making any of my schemes for the control of traffic subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure if it was held that it would injuriously affect
any interest in land abutting upon a road which is intended to be the subject of such a regulation …
No definition of "injuriously affect" is given. It would be difficult to define.
The Clause would enable any objector having an interest in affected land to force the Minister to go through the affirmative Resolution procedure in respect of any traffic regulations which he might make affecting land abutting upon that road. I am surprised at my hon. Friend in one respect. The Clause is designed to secure property rights but, knowing his interest as I do, I am astonished to find that it makes no corresponding provision for objectors who believe that a proposed measure would prejudice road safety.
The Clause would affect only the exercise of the Minister's powers, but not those of local authorities. They could do what they liked, although they control a far greater number of roads than I do.

Mr. Graham Page: But local authorities have to hold public inquiries before carrying out schemes of this sort.

Mr. Marples: But the schemes of local authorities are not subject to an affirmative Resolution of this House. My hon. Friend is saying that we should go through the affirmative Resolution procedure in respect of the Minister's schemes and of nobody else's.

Mr. Page: But my right hon. Friend does not have to hold a public inquiry. By a stroke of the pen he can put his scheme into effect.

Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend believes that there will not be a public examination in respect of Highgate he should read his newspapers. It will be examined exhaustively in every respect.
The Clause would affect speed limit orders, because my consent is required, but it would not apply to one-way traffic orders made by a local authority. All I am saying is that I do not think that the Legislature is the appropriate body to consider objections made, whether on private grounds or other grounds, to measures for the regulation of traffic on certain roads. The orders to be dealt with are very numerous. Outside London, in 1959–60 we had three oneway orders on trunk roads; 38 orders for speed limits on trunk roads, and 123 other speed limit orders. Inside London, we had 52 one-way traffic regulations, 18 right or left turn regulations and 16 speed limit orders and regulations.
Nearly every one of those would come within the scope of my hon. Friend's new Clause. The number of speed limit orders alone now runs at over 400 per annum, and this would mean that we would have to make several affirmative Resolutions on every sitting day. This would be quite impracticable, as well as being constitutionally unsound.
I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the whole of London's traffic—and the idea of the Ministry is to try to keep the traffic going—would grind to a halt, because on every sitting day of the House we would have to deal with two, three or four affirmative Resolutions for different schemes. We would wreck the machine, and nothing would happen. Cinder the circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Clause.
I know how deeply he feels about Highgate, but I have promised every person I have seen from Highgate that every alternative suggestion will be gone into with a fine tooth-comb. It is a very difficult job to try to balance the needs of traffic against the needs of private persons. Whatever I do will be wrong, but I shall do the best I can. I can assure my hon. Friend that if we accepted the Clause it would mean that London's traffic would grind to a halt.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I can understand and sympathise with the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman to this Motion on the grounds of administrative difficulties and the fact that the legislative machine would be blocked. One of the problems of Parliament is to decide when it is no longer physically possible to deal with all the detail which comes before us. But Parliament refuses to accept a degree of delegation of legislation which I consider essential and inevitable.
The thing that worries me is that the right hon. Gentleman appears to take the attitude that there is no problem. I disagree entirely. One can understand the ebullience and happiness of the right hon. Gentleman this evening. His head is firmly fixed on his shoulders. He goes from Ministry to Ministry—

Mr. Marples: Oh, no. I stay.

Mr. Marsh: I suppose it would be wrong to describe him as one of the untouchables but when he is touched it is not to his disadvantage.
Here we have a very serious human problem. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) mentioned the situation in my constituency. The Minister should consider this and see whether there is something which could be done to give a greater degree of protection than there is at present to those ordinary people whose entire capital and life savings have been invested in their homes. I do not desire to make a party issue of this matter, but it is no use talking about a property-owning democracy when people who have saved all their lives to purchase a small home find themselves in such a situation. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot appreciate the difference between his


home and some of the homes in my constituency, I will willingly show him and he will discover that ceilings in houses in the back streets of Greenwich are less secure than those in his own house. I do not know what his house is like—

Mr. Steele: It is all-electric.

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend says that it is all-electric. I do not know, but I imagine that it is an interesting house, containing a lot of little side rooms in which to meet people, several back doors and a number of cupboards full of tooth-combs. I am quite certain that the structural solidarity of the Minister's house is exceeded only by his personal and political stability.
That sort of thing does not exist in a lot of the tiny two-roomed slum and semi-slum properties in London and other parts of the country; and suddenly to have eight-wheeler diesel lorries running past these houses within two yards of the front door, because there are no front gardens, means eventually the virtual destruction of the value of the property without the owner having any redress at all.
There are people in my constituency whose houses are untenable. They do not want to live there any longer. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to examine the houses referred to by the hon. Member for Crosby. But he has a long-standing invitation to spend a night with one of my constituents—[Interruption.]—who is a gentleman of impeccable character. The Minister has a long-standing invitation to spend a night in the house of this gentleman, whose wife will be there too, and she is a lady whose character is also impeccable. There is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the invitation, apart from the fact that he does not want to.
One cannot sleep soundly at night in that house. It is impossible, with eight-wheeler lorries changing gear in the short roadway outside. The people living in this sort of property want to get out, but they find that they cannot sell their houses because no one wants them. One old-age pensioner in my constituency has been offered £1,600 for his house, which he bought for £2,200. He

asks where he can get another house for £1,600. He has no mortgage because no one will give him one. He has no savings because after the years under this Government no one has savings left. He has no compensation for what to him is the destruction—although I fully accept that it is in the public interest— of his amenity.
I do not want to develop this further, Mr. Speaker—I have a horrible suspicion that you probably would not allow me to do so—but I feed that while this may not be the best way of dealing with the matter, there is a serious problem here. It is one to which the Minister and the Ministry ought to give attention in the near future. Of course there are objections every time the character of a road is charged, but there are some schemes where not only the character is changed but where the loss of amenity value is not debateable because the properties cannot be sold.
If people have to make that sacrifice for the public good a responsibility rests on the right hon. Gentleman to ensure Chat in some way they are compensated and difficulties are made less for them. One thing about this House has always been that if a man has a house it is sacred to him and if his property has to be destroyed in the national interest the State has a duty to do something about it.

Mr. Albert Evans: I intervene briefly because I feel it necessary to say a word or two after the part of the Minister's speech that dealt with the Highgate scheme. The proposal made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Paige) is quite impracticable. I think he will acknowledge that it is impossible for every traffic order to come before this House to receive approval. The Minister made it clear that we could mot deal with the volume of work which that would entail. Nevertheless, the hon. Member has raised an important matter and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has underlined it. The hon. Member for Crosby raised a problem which will be increasingly with us as the years go by.
The Highgate scheme seems to have brought the dictatorial power of the Minister very much into the public eye. Part of that scheme runs through my


constituency. The Minister will receive a volume of evidence and opinion from large numbers of people and many important representative bodies. He will receive representations from all the affected parties. Having some knowledge of the local circumstances, I predict that the overwhelming amount of that evidence and those representations will be opposed to his scheme. Almost every person concerned, because the scheme affects his street or locality, will oppose it. However, the Minister has the power and will use it. He will over-ride all that volume of opposition.
There is the weakness in the present position. The Minister has such power vested in him as one person to over-ride a very large volume of representation. I suggest that as the Minister goes ahead with his important work he will have to bring in many schemes such as the Highgate one before he has cleared up London. London five years ahead will be quite different from What it is today. Many schemes (have to be introduced and changes have to be made. As the Minister goes along he may find it necessary with major schemes to allow this House to come into the picture so that those who protest and are turned down by the Minister will know that the House of Commons has finally sanctioned a scheme introduced by the Minister.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(RESTRICTED INSURANCE POLICIES.)

Where a policy of insurance issued under Part VI of the principal Act is restricted to insure one named driver only the certificate of insurance shall be overprinted in a different colour with words "Driving restricted to policy holder only" and there shall be conspicuously displayed on the motor vehicle to which the policy relates the words "Driving of this vehicle is restricted to policy holder only".—[Mr. C. Royle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. C. Royle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This proposed Clause is a simple one. I do not claim that any great principles are involved or that anything of great importance hangs upon it. It is very reasonable and would, I suggest, be very useful for the courts.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are suggesting that in the case of insurance certificates for the driving of cars, motor cycles and other motor vehicles the certificate in the case of one main driver should have in print, boldly displayed and probably in red letters on the top of it words such as "For one main driver only".
This question arises from the experience of the counts where rather irresponsible young people come into possession of motor vehicles, usually motor cycles, and are involved in an offence. In many oases they buy second-hand motor cycles and sometimes cheap second-hand cars. Often they are bought on hire purchase. They have no insurance experience. Sometimes they are inclined to lend their machines innocently or ignorantly to friends who go out on them and are not insured because of the limitations of the policy and of the certificate.
I am not trying to defend the irresponsible, but it is the experience of the counts that many of these cases arise. When these people are brought before the courts they often say, "We did not know." I know that it is true that often they do not take the trouble to read the policy, the cover note or the certificate of insurance.
The reason I advance this new Clause is because, like the Minister of Transport, I believe that prevention is better than cure. I believe that if there were a more bold statement on the certificate there would be less risk of the law being disobeyed. The overprint would be seen very clearly and there would be less risk of these motorists coming before the courts.
Apart from the question of overprint, we suggest in the Clause that there should also be on all vehicles some sort of label attached to show that the machine is insured for one main driver only. During the debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that there were practical difficulties and that these labels would blot out part of the windscreen. There is not a great deal of strength in that argument. I drive a rather old car and along the bottom of the windscreen are the foreign sagas that I should have to obey when on the Continent. They have been on the windscreen for years, and they do not


blot out anything from my vision. There could easily be something like that along the bottom of the windscreens of these vehicles. In the case of motor cycles, the notice could be attached to the handlebars or to the windscreens which many motor cycles now have. It is a simple matter. It would prevent a great many people from disobeying the law because they would be quite clear about the matter.
I do not want to delay the House a moment longer. We have made rather slow progress with the Bill, but I hope that the fact that I have made only a short speech will not lead anyone to believe that I am not sincere in my desire for this provision to be adopted. I hope that the Minister will accept it.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) has already raised this matter in Standing Committee. The first part of the new Clause is virtually the same as that which he put down then and which we debated. He has not told the House—I think that he might have done—that I gave an undertaking then that we would see what we could do to meet it. I pointed out that it would require regulations and that we had power to do this by regulation, although, as we are obliged to do, having drafted our regulations we must circulate them to the interested parties and bodies for comment.
As far as we are concerned, that undertaking stands. I hope that the hon. Member will accept it that since the Committee stage concluded last week there has not been time to draft regulations and to circulate them to all the interested parties, to receive their comments, to sift them and to make the final regulations. That would have been expecting rather too much of a Department, which can move very quickly when it needs to do so. But just because we have not been able to report very much progress since we dealt with the matter last week does not mean that we are doing nothing about it. My undertaking stands, and we shall produce the regulations and consult the interested parties, including the insurers. I cannot go beyond that.
That is the first part of the new Clause. The next relates to the display on the

vehicle of a notice saying that the driving of the vehicle is restricted to the policy holder only. The genesis of this idea was in some extempore remarks of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) in the debate on that proposal for overprinting the insurance certificate. Speaking immediately after him, and giving my first impression, I said, as the hon. Member for Salford, West repeated, that I saw some possible difficulties on the road safety point of view if we have notices stuck on windscreens. But that was not a considered view.
I have taken a good deal of advice on that idea since we met in Standing Committee. There is a substantial difficulty to start with in meeting this proposal. First, how should we decide who was responsible for displaying the notice? Quite a number of people may be involved. There is the vehicle owner and the policy holder, and there may also be the driver. The new Clause does not say which of these people shall be responsible for the display of the notice, but if the Clause is to have any effect we must attach some kind of sanction to it, and it is not clear to whom that sanction would attach.
Secondly, I remind the hon. Member that the named driver in a policy may by no means always be the policy holder. There is the obvious example of a commercial vehicle, in which case the policy holder is the employer but the named driver for the vehicle is an employee.
It would be extremely difficult to find a place on a motor cycle on which the notice could be exhibited if the hon. Member's objective were to be achieved —the objective being to bring to the notice of anyone mounting the machine the fact that it was insured for only a named driver. It would be difficult to find a place to which it could be attached.
I think that the House would wish carefully to consider whether it is wise in all the circumstances to single out for special mention in a notice of this kind a condition which is one of many conditions which can attach to an insurance policy. There are many other conditions in an insurance policy which are just as important as that of the driver or the person who is insured to drive.
Finally, I think that the conclusive argument is that if we were to accept the suggestion we should have to decide what to do about the vehicle which is insured by its owner on a single-driver basis, but which, nevertheless, can be driven by some other person whose own insurance policy covers him while he is driving not only his own, but any vehicle.
For all these reasons, the suggestion in the latter part of the new Clause just will not do. I am sorry, but I really had hoped that in Committee I had made it clear that we would approach the other suggestion about the over-printing of the insurance certificate with a good deal of favour. We will do all we can to bring the regulations forward, but beyond that I cannot go. I cannot advise the House to accept the Clause, principally because it is unnecessary and also because on the second leg it is unworkable.

Mr. C. Royle: I am very disappointed with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have given a great deal of thought to this matter since we finished the Committee stage and I still think that it should be within the terms of the Bill. I cannot, therefore, in any circumstance, ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Cole: One example which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave left him uncovered, because if the employer of one of the employee drivers drove the vehicle the Clause would not apply, because it would be a case of the policy-holder only and that case is ruled out. However, that is a minor matter and when my hon. Friend translates into action the first part of the

Clause, and, I also hope, the second part, I trust that he will bear in mind two things.

My hon. Friend said that there were other points of the insurance policy of equal import to its being restricted to the policy holder only. Is there anything more important in a policy than the fact that a man should be driving without insurance at all? That is the import of the Clause. It seeks to deal with the case where a driver would be driving a motor car or a motor cycle without 'being insured, and any third party would be liable to have a claim against the driver without the possibility of satisfaction.

If there were something on the car or motor cycle—and I leave the insurance policy for a moment—the case of a person driving the vehicle without insurance would never happen, because the man would know that he was committing a felony at the very moment he took the vehicle. He could not plead ignorance of the conditions unless he drove the car with his eyes shut. He would shy off borrowing the motor cycle or motor car and we should never have a case such as the one I have quoted, of a man who was awarded £18,000 damages against the driver but who will not receive a penny. It should be shown without peradventure that the man would be breaking the law if he borrowed the vehicle.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 179.

Division No. 247.]
AYES
19.53 p.m.


Awbery, Stan
Dempsey, James
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Dodds, Norman
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Beaney, Alan
Edelman, Maurice
Hilton, A. V.


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly)
Holman, Percy


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hooson, H. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Lelcs,S.W.)
Evans, Albert
Houghton, Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Finch, Harold
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Hoy, James H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Forman, J. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Calpern, Sir Myer
Hunter, A. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Crossman, R. H. S.
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Grey, Charles
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Dalyell, Tarn
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hannan, William
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Kelley, Richard


Delargy, Hugh
Hayman, F. H.
Kenyon, Clifford




Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phllip(Derby, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


King, Dr. Horace
Oswald, Thomas
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Lawson, George
Parker, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pavitt, Laurence
Swingler, Stephen


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taverne, D.


Lubbock, Eric
Popplewell, Ernest
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


MacColl, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


MacDermot, Niall
Redhead, E. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Mclnnes, James
Rhodes, H.
Thornton, Ernest


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomny, Frank


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wade, Donald


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Weitzman, David


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Manuel, Archie
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mapp, Charles
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Marsh, Richard
Short, Edward
Woof, Robert


Mellish, R. J.
Skeffington, Arthur



Monslow, Walter
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, John
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Neal, Harold
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. McCann.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Steele, Thomas





NOES


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gower, Raymond
Partridge, C.


Allason, James
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Ashton, sir Hubert
Green, Alan
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Gresham Cooke, R.
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Peyton, John


Baxter, sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Berkeley, Humphry
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd) 
Pott, Percivall


Biffen, John
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bingham, R. M.
Hay, John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Rawlinson, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rees, Hugh


Box, Donald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Roots, William


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hocking, Philip N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Russell, Ronald


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
St. Clair, M.


Brooman-White, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, William


Bullard, Denys
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn) 
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smithers, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Channon, H. P. G.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kaberry, sir Donald
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Collard, Richard
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cooper, A. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Teeling, Sir William


Cordle, John
Linstead, sir Hugh
Temple John M.


Corfield, F. V.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Coulson, Michael
Longbottom, Charles
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Loveys, Walter H.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Critchley, Julian
McLaughlln, Mrs. Patricia
Turner, Colin


Crowder, F. P.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.) 
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Curran, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Currie, G. B. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Van straubenzee, W. R


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maginnis, John E.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Deedes, W. F.
Maitland, Sir John
Walder, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Wall, patrick,


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, Douglas
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Webster David


Duncan, Sir James
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Elliott, R. W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N) 
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L, C.
Wise, A. R.


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
Miscampbell, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Fisher, Nigel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Worsley, Marcus


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Noble, Michael
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gibson-Watt, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Gilmour, Sir John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Goodhew, Victor
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Mr. McLaren.

Proceedings on the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

New Clause.—(LICENCE TO DRIVE A MOTOR CYCLE.)

The Minister may make regulations providing that no person shall be entitled to the grant of a licence or, if he has previously held a provisional licence, to the grant of a new provisional licence, to drive a motor cycle of such cylinder capacity as the Minister may specify, unless such person holds a certificate issued by a training school approved by the Minister showing that he has attended within twelve months of his application a training course recognised by the Minister to be satisfactory.—[Mr. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I think that the Clause is acceptable in principle to all hon. Members. It will be generally agreed that, if it were possible to provide training for all those who first ride motor bicycles, the number of deaths occurring amongst motor cyclists would be very substantially reduced. Therefore, my argument is not about the desirability of what I propose, but about whether it is practicable.
However, I want to put a few figures before the House to convince any of those who are unaware of the fatalities which now occur to motor cyclists how serious the figures are and how necessary it is for Parliament through the Minister to do something to reduce the number killed. Sixty per cent. of all fatal accidents on roads, apart from those involved as pedestrians, concern motor cycle and scooter riders and passengers. In 1961, 6,441 learner motor cyclists, scooter and moped riders were involved in serious and fatal accidents, an appalling number. This means that 55 per cent. of all serious and fatal accidents occurred to learners on motor cycles, scooters and mopeds.
Far more accidents involve the riders of these machines than any others, on whatever basis one's calculations are made. By far the greatest number of accidents to motor cyclists involved learners of these machines. The important question is whether anything

should or can be done to stop this heavy fatality rate, and the Clause suggests not only that something should be done but that it can be done.
If anyone wants to get a licence to drive a car he must pass a test and before going on the road the car must be equipped with L plates and the learner accompanied by an experienced driver. One can drive a car, a comparatively safe vehicle, without being accompanied by an experienced driver only after reaching a certain age and passing a driving test. But a boy of 16 is entitled to ride a motor cycle of less than 250 cc on our crowded roads merely by purchasing the necessary L plates. If he is 17 he can ride any motor cycle of any power merely by affixing L plates.
This system is all wrong and everyone agrees that the existing state of affairs is highly undesirable. We must consider what action can be taken to ensure that young fellows learn to ride these machines through proper tuition off the crowded roads. Only then should they be able to obtain a driving licence.
Training schemes are already run by, for example, the R.A.C. and the A.C.U. These schemes are designed to train young people to ride motor cycles, scooters and similar machines and the courses have been extremely successful. They are growing in number and a significant point is that the Minister makes a grant of £5,000 a year to the R.A.C. for this purpose. Many motor cycle manufacturers give machines to the various clubs connected with these schemes. There are now about 10,000 trainees a year going through the R.A.C. and A.C.U. schemes, and it is intended to introduce facilities to enable the number to be increased during the next few years.
We do not suggest that it is possible that every young fellow who wants to drive a motor cycle can go through these training courses this year, next year, or the year after Obviously it will take time to expand them sufficiently before we can insist that every person who wishes to drive a motor cycle or scooter should go through a course and obtain a certificate of efficiency. It may be three or four years before that is possible, but it is desirable. The


Minister should take power in the Bill— it will probably be another six years before we have another Road Traffic Bill—to make it compulsory for every young person who wants to drive a motor cycle to have to go through a course and to obtain a certificate of efficiency.
Statistics show that the rate of accidents among those who drive motor cycles for the first six months is double that of accidents among those who drive them for the subsequent six months. The greater part of the accidents to motor cycles occur among those who have taken no course or have not been trained by anybody. The number is appalling.
What did the Government say in answer to a similar new Clause moved in Committee? The Minister said that he would consider it to see whether it was practicable. It has been considered by the Minister, and the Parliamentary Seretary has been good enough to write me a letter to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it practicable for the reasons given in Committee. In short, the reasons were these. First, it would be a considerable time before courses could be run on a large enough scale to make it practicable to require the attendance of everyone who wished to ride a motor cycle or scooter. In addition—this phrase was used in the letter to me and in Committee—it is said that if the Government were given power under the Bill to make this compulsory, that power would be a continual embarrassment to the Government. I can see that argument.
To have powers which are highly desirable and which Parilament wants the Minister to enforce but which the Minister is not willing or able to enforce may be embarrassing to the Government, but we do not mind very much about that. The Minister took power by the 1956 Act to make the testing of all vehicles compulsory. That may have been highly embarrassing fox the Government, but it was pressed by Parliament and by many people outside. If the object which we have in mind is good, we want the Government to implement it as quickly as possible. If the Government say, "We cannot imple-

ment this quickly. Give us more time", it may be a reasonable excuse, but it is not an answer to a proposal that the Government should take power to do something which admittedly must save the lives of several hundred people a year.

Mr. Hay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. About 10 per cent. of the fatal road accidents occur to motor cyclists. There are about 7,000 fatal accidents a year. That means about 700 motor cyclists are involved in those accidents. A very high proportion of these occur to young people in the process of learning. So it is no exaggeration to say that if a scheme of this sort is put into operation it may reduce fatal accidents to young people by several hundred.
We therefore urge this proposal strongly and ask the Government to take these powers. I would not expect them to put them into operation for a few years because I know that that is not practicable, but if they were determined the courses run by the R.A.C. and by the A.C.U. could be expanded much faster than they have been in the last few years. The Government should give these bodies much more monetary help than they are giving at present, and they should make a real drive along these lines.
10.15 p.m.
I believe that if we could make provision on these lines we could do more to prevent road accidents and reduce the number of fatalities than by any other measures which the Government are operating or have in mind. I put this proposal forward as a very important one. It may be unpopular with those motor cyclists who at the age of 16 or 17 want to go straight on to the roads with a motor cycle, without having the nuisance of training or attending a course. All right. One has to put up with that, but there is a very large class of people with whom this proposal would be exceedingly popular—all the parents of all those boys.
Nothing frightens the parents of young fallows more than this plea, and it is very common, to own and ride a motor cycle. They can get them cheaply on


hire purchase, and bays of 16 and 17 want to have motor cycles. Very large numbers get them, and their parents are always terrified that they will have an accident when they go on the road, without having gone through any training course whatever. If the Government are able in a short time to ensure that no boy drives a motor cycle or a moped without going through a training course, parents would be exceedingly grateful to the Government.
The boys themselves might not like it, but that does not matter very much. Their parents will like it, and it will 'be a very popular measure. Public opinion and the motor cycle manufacturing industry are all in favour of such a proposal, and the responsible journals dealing with motor cycling and the manufacturers all 'believe that such a proposal is a good one, and that the present training courses are excellent ones and should be expanded. Almost all of them have been advocating that they should gradually be made complusory.
The proposal which we now put forward is that the Government should take powers, admitting that they cannot put them into operation immediately, while this Road Traffic Bill is before us, to make such training courses compulsory for all young fellows who want to drive motor cycles and mopeds—the most dangerous motor vehicles on the roads. We put it forward with the certainty that when put into operation it will have a dramatic effect in bringing down the appallingly 'high number of accidents which now occur to these boys when they first take their motor cycles on the road.

Mr. Hay: As the night hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) told the House, this matter was discussed at some length in the Standing Committee, and he himself moved a new Clause in identical terms to the one which he has moved tonight. I gave a very firm undertaking, with a completely open mind, that we would look at the proposition to see whether we could accept the idea of taking these powers in the present Bill, although I made it clear then, as I

must make it clear again tonight, that we see no early prospect of implementing Che proposal.
As the light hon. Gentleman said, I have considered this very fully and carefully with my advisers. I have written to him and explained why we have come to the conclusion that we would be asking the House to enact a mockery if we were to accept these powers tonight. May I now come to the crux of the question, because nothing divides the two sides of the House on the merits? We want to see every young motor cyclist undergo a training course, and I hope very much that the R.A.C. and A.C.U. motor cyclists' training schemes, to which the night hon. Gentleman referred, will be substantially expanded. At the moment, about 6,000 motor cyclists a year are being trained. We hope this year to get the figure up to 10,000, but it is not an easy job, for reasons which I must explain.
I must, however, make it clear that before we could accept the principle behind the Clause—that before a motor cyclist could obtain a licence, he must successfully have undergone a training course—the courses run by the R.A.C and the A.C.U. would have to be expanded to take about a quarter of a million people a year as against the 10,000 which is our target for the current year.
The right hon. Gentleman has said, quite rightly, that the Ministry has been giving financial help towards the scheme. We regard it as money well spent. We have been spending about £5,000 a year on it. We have now obtained authority to double the amount of money which we can grant. In other words, we shall be spending henceforth about £10,000 a year on the scheme. The industry itself is also contributing towards the scheme and we shall ask it to consider the possibility of doubling its contribution.
Money alone, however, is not the only difficulty. There are certain other difficulties which must feature in any decision that the House reaches on this proposition. As well as money, we need a large number of training centres for the proper operation of the scheme, and certainly for its expansion. We need to acquire more machines on which training can be done. Moreover, we need to


acquire a large number of training grounds where people can be trained off the street.
One other fact which has to be borne in mind is that this is a voluntary scheme. The R.A.C. is dependent largely upon voluntary people as instructors and examiners. Very often, the police help to do this work and very often the local motor cycle clubs do it. To get the scheme expanded to the size where it can take 250,000 trainees a year will, however, require a vast number of new training grounds, a very large number of machines on which instruction can be given and a very large number of new instructors. I would not try to delude the House by pretending that we could expect to expand the scheme to that size within the next few years. If we were to accept the powers that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would thrust upon us by the new Clause, we should be enacting a mockery. We in the Ministry of Transport know perfectly well that even with the best will in the world we could not get the scheme expanded within a reasonable time to do the sort of thing which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want us to do. We would have to expand the scheme about forty times what it is today before we could possibly make it work.

Mr. Mellish: The figures given by the hon. Gentleman are overwhelming. He said that in the coming year it is hoped to handle about 10,000 trainees. Is that the full capacity of the existing scheme, or is it simply the number of volunteers who are expected? Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that when stretched to the limit, the scheme could not possibly train 10,000 people this year?

Mr. Hay: That is exactly what I am saying. Our target is 10,000 and we shall be hard put to it to get the off-street training grounds, the instructors and the machines to reach that figure. That is why we are increasing our grant to see whether a doubling of our present provision will help to get these things going.
For those reasons, I must advise the House not to incorporate the new Clause

in the Bill. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that we are with them in their objective, but that to try to make us take powers that we have no possibility of using for a good many years, with all the consequent likelihood of hon. Members and people outside pestering the Government month after month and year after year to bring the regulations into effect, would be a great embarrassment.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman still has any delusions about being a member of the very ageing Cabinet which must follow the Conservative one if the party opposite wins the next General Election. I assure him, however, that he would be extremely embarrassed if such powers fell to him. In all the circumstances, I hope that the House will not insist upon putting the new Clause into the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: We understand the difficulties to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) made clear, we recognise that the Government could not implement in the immediate future the powers we seek to thrust upon them. However, we feel that the Clause would act as a prod to any Government. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the days of the Government are numbered, that it will not be long before they are replaced, and that whatever the age of the members of the new Cabinet it must be very much better than the old Cabinet.
It would be a prod to the Government of the day to try to implement such a scheme. We believe that to be right in principle. The alternative is not to have these powers and to continue with the Minister's present plans. But the Minister's present view is, "We will try to expand, but we do not think we can." In that case, we shall not have a scheme in our lifetime.
We are determined to divide the House upon this Clause, because we are convinced of the Tightness of the principle. We believe that these powers are justified, and we think that if the Government have them, we shall one day see them in operation.

Mr. A. Evans: I would point out that the new Clause enables the Minister


to limit its scope to the higher-rated motor cycles. Therefore, it need not necessarily apply to the 250,000 people whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 152.

Division No. 248.]
AYES
[10.26 p.m.


Awbery, Stan
Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Beaney, Alan
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Redhead, E. C.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoy, James H.
Rhodes, H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, Edward


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Dodds, Norman
Kenyon, Clifford
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. Horace
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lawson, George
Taverne, D.


Evans, Albert
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Finch, Harold
Mclnnes, James
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Foot Dingle (Ipswich)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Forman, J. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Tomney, Frank


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marsh, Richard
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mellish, R. J.
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce



Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Morris, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold
Dr. Broughton and Mr. McCann.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
du Cann, Edward
Litchfield, Capt. John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Duncan, Sir James
Longbottom, Charles


Allason, James
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McLaren, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
Errington, Sir Eric
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Batsford, Brian
Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.


Berkeley, Humphry
Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. N.(Dumfries)


Biffen, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maginnis, John E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gibson-Watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Black, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Bourne-Arton, A.
Goodhew, Victor
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brewis, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Mawby, Ray


Brooman-White, R.
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Buck, Antony
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton


Bullard, Denys
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Miscampbell, Norman


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hay, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cleaver, Leonard
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Collard, Richard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Cooper, A. E.
Hocking, Philip N.
Partridge, E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Corfield, F. V.
Hornby, R. P.
Peel, John


Coulson, Michael
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Percival, Ian


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pitt, Miss Edith


Crowder, F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pott, Percivall


Curran, Charles
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Hugh


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roots, William


Drayson, G. B.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard




Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Ward, Dame Irene


Sharpies, Richard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Webster, David


Shepherd, William
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Turner, Colin
Wise, A. R.


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Smithers, Peter
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Woodhouse, C. M.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
van Straubenzee, w. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wade, Donald



Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, MOSS Side)
Walder, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Teeling, Sir William
Walker, Peter
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
Mr. M. Hamilton.

Clause 2.—(EVIDENCE ON CHARGE OF UNFITNESS TO DRIVE.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in page 1, line 18, after "time" insert
and proof that such proportion or quantity of alcohol which was contained in the blood or present in the body of the accused, ascertained as aforesaid, exceeded one hundred milligrams in one hundred millilitres shall be sufficient but not conclusive evidence that the ability of the accused to drive properly was for the time being impaired".
is not selected, but it may be discussed with the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), in page 1, line 25, at end insert:
(2) If it is proved that the accused at the time of his driving or attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle had more than such proportion or quantity of alcohol contained in his blood or present in his body as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, such proof shall be conclusive evidence that the ability of the accused to drive properly was for the time being impaired.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, at the end, to insert:
Provided that there shall be evidence of inability to drive properly in addition to evidence relating to the proportion or quantity of alcohol or any drug present in the body of the accused.
This Amendment was discussed in connection with another one to Clause 2 during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I feel strongly about it because I received certain assurances to which I shall refer in a few minutes. The point of the Amendment is this. Some of us fear (that when the breathalyser is put into action by the police when they think that a driver might be under the influence of alcohol, a nasty-minded policeman could, if he wished, go to the door of a public house and push the breathalyser into the face of a man coming out, before he had got into his motor car, and accuse him of being drunk and incapable of properly handling a motor car, and on that evidence have him prosecuted. Some of us are afraid of the position which arises in Sweden, which is almost a police State, where a man can be prosecuted solely on the amount of alcohol in the blood, without any relation to whether or not he can drive.
In Committee this Amendment was favourably received by the then Minister of State for the Home Department, who is now a right hon. and learned Gentleman, and whose absence tonight many of us deplore. At the end of the discussion on this Amendment my right hon. and learned Friend said:
Regarding the second Amendment, having considered this matter very carefully and having listened to the interesting discussion this morning, I feel that I have a duty to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it in order to enable me to consider the matter.
The Chairman said:
It is not a question of withdrawing the Amendment. The second Amendment has not been moved …
The Minister of State said:
As always, I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Arbuthnot, and I think, therefore, that the correct position would be for me to say that if my hon. Friend should decide not to move the Amendment I would give an undertaking to consider the matter on Report in the hope —and it can only be a hope at his moment for reasons which I shall explain—that I may put down a Government Amendment on Report.
Later my right hon. and learned Friend referred to this Amendment and said:
We think that my hon. Friend and those who support him have made out a case which we must consider on this matter, bearing in mind that precedent in the road-traffic law— in spite of the fact that corroboration is very rarely required—and that these matters are generally left to the court.
He went on:
My hon. Friend the Member for Broms-grove (Mr. Dance) put it in a nutshell when he referred to the Swedish experiment and said that there was a chance that the police might abuse the power given to them. We all have the highest respect for the police and I never think it is very kind to them to give them a power which is easily abused. It is for those reasons that I should like to consider the Amendment further, for the weight of opinion in the Committee has been such that I should do so and I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will accept that explanation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1962; c. 168–70.]
I did accept that explanation and obtained permission to withdraw the Amendment.
As I have said, my hon. Friends and I, along with other Members of the Committee, think that in the case of drivers alleged to be drunk there should be some corroborative evidence besides that purely of the breathalyser. I suggested that there should be some evidence of


inability to drive, and that we should not get into the position that exists in Sweden, which is almost a police State in this respect, where one can be hauled up straight away by a policeman who has put a breathalyser in one's face, with no other evidence being produced.
That is why I thought it reasonable to move the Amendment, and why it was highly reasonable that the Minister of State should say that he would consider it and perhaps put down a similar Amendment on Report. I am sorry that that has not been done. In the light of that fact my hon. Friends and I thought that the matter should again be drawn to the attention of the Government.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. It would be a retrograde step. This is a road safety Bill. We agreed on that in Committee, and I think that every Member in the House realises that nearly every one of the Bill's provisions is designed to help to reduce the terrible toll on the roads. In existing legislation penalties are imposed on drivers who are unable to control their vehicles because they have had too much to drink. The Amendment would mean that a man could be drunk—I was going to say "as drunk as a lord", but, at any rate, completely drunk—and yet other corroborative evidence would have to be brought in addition to the fact that everybody knew, and could see, and the police could prove up to the hilt, that he was quite incapable of driving a vehicle owing to his having taken too much alcohol. That would be quite wrong.
I do not want to trespass upon another Amendment, but it is right to point out that here, for the first time, in Clause 2, we are making certain changes in the law to provide for certain tests of drunkenness, or being under the influence of drugs. If the Amendment is accepted it would nullify all that the Minister is trying to do in Clause 2.
I therefore hope that the House, without more ado, will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Crowder: I am extremely interested in the Amendment. This is a matter which the House should not let

go too easily and too quickly. I must declare a certain interest in this sort of case, because I frequently have to try such cases as Recorder, and also appear either for the prosecution or the defence. The one thing that one always seeks to say to every jury is, "Everybody is affected by alcohol, however small the amount taken The important question is to what extent the person concerned is affected."
10.45 p.m.
One is aware of the hazards on the road today and one knows only too well that people can make mistakes. A split-second decision on the part of a driver may make all the difference in the world. One expects that if the co-ordination between a man's mind and his hand is affected in such a way that his judgment is not such as is required to drive on our roads today, he is not fit to be in charge of a car. But I would say this, and I think it is rather important. It does not matter how much a person has had to drink. What matters is the degree to which the alcohol or drug has affected his judgment and his powers of coordination between hand and eye.
A girl of 18 who has had a couple of glasses of sherry may not be fit to be on the road. But why should not a person ' who is accustomed to drink drive a car, if it can be shown that his mental capacity and co-ordination are such that that he has a perfect appreciation of his faculties?

Mr. Steele: He is the last person who should judge himself.

Mr. Crowder: I entirely agree. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the dictum of Mr. Justice Byrne, probably the greatest criminal lawyer that this country has seen. He said that in such cases the real test is the driving.
Obviously, if a man is suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, he cannot be allowed to get in his car and turn it round twice in a road which is full of other vehicles. But in such cases it will nearly always be found that the evidence is about the driving, and it is on the driving that we should concentrate, in my view, rather than on the amount that a person has had to drink. There is all the difference in the world


between the reactions of a man, a commercial traveller for example, who has had a busy day and has not had a meal but who has two or three whiskies—and whose driving may be deplorable—and a man who has spent an easy day, had a large meal and the same amount to drink. His driving may not be affected. It is the amount of drink which is the point of this Amendment.
Why should this House seek to impose a course of action on the juries and the courts? Why should this House have the temerity to dictate to the courts through the provisions of this Bill about how they should proceed? Every case which comes before the courts is peculiar in its own circumstances and I would trust the courts and the British juries.

Mr. Dick Taverne: Surely the reason why the House should take the steps proposed in this Bill is that we want to deter people from driving if they have been drinking. If it is left to the driver to judge whether he is driving properly a large number of people will drink far more than is good for them if they propose to drive a motor vehicle, and far more than would enable them to drive properly.
It seems to me that the only way in which this problem can be tackled is by the adoption of a deterrent attitude towards the drunken motorists. The only way in which that can be established is to provide, for the first time, Chat the evidence of alcoholic content in the blood shall be taken into account. The effect of that would be that a great many people who have been in the habit of drinking will no longer drink before they drive. The present figures for accidents late at night suggest that there are a number of people who think that they are fit to drive when they are not, and rigorous measures must be taken against them. For those reasons, I strongly oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who moved this Amendment. We had a debate on it in Committee, and a very interesting one it was. I think it right to say, perhaps, that the failure to put down an Amendment to this effect is not actually a breach of an undertaking given to the Committee because my right hon. and learned Friend, as he now is, who handled the

matter in Committee did not finally commit himself to put down an Amendment to this effect.
I believe it is right to say that most of us took it for granted that this battle had been fought and won on its merits, and it was a great surprise to find at the last moment that an Amendment to this effect had not been put down by the Government. I do not say that we have been actually let down, but it is surprising and one would like to hear why this rather strange change of view has taken place since the Committee stage of the Bill.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) about the importance of strongly discouraging motorists from drinking before they drive. I certainly do not take any lax view about that. Indeed, for a great many years I have made it an invariable rule not to drink at all because I think it is much more prudent these days not to do so. At the same time, one really must try to fashion the law a great deal more carefully than we seem to be doing.
I have been rather alarmed in the course of the Bill to find this sort of general bludgeon attack on the motorist. When an hon. Member on either side of the House takes up the point that it is wrong indiscriminately to hit out at motorists there is almost an onslaught upon him. The argument is put that we ought to hit out indiscriminately and that something has to be done to stop the killing or maiming of thousands on the roads. That is not good enough.
Something, of course, must be done within reason to try to stop accidents, but that does not dispense us from the duty of drafting the law carefully, sensibly and moderately. Here, of course, we are introducing—and certainly in Committee I fully supported this—methods of testing the alcohol content of the blood. I think that absolutely right, but some of us are worried that having a certain amount of alcohol in the blood might develop into a separate driving offence, as it is in Sweden and, possibly, in some other countries.
I know that that is not the intention of Clause 2, but it could be the result. The Clause says that
the court shall … have regard to any evidence which may be given …


We have had a rather unfortunate experience of the way in which some phrases in the Road Traffic Act have developed. There is a real risk that "shall have regard" may come to be interpreted as governing words and that where a court is offered evidence of a high proportion of alcohol in the blood it will convict on that fact alone without there being any evidence at all of impairment to drive.
That is not the intention of Parliament. Indeed, that intention has been expressly disclaimed by the Government in Committee, and I presume here also. The argument in favour of the Amendment is that it has been put down as an additional safeguard. It may not be necessary. It may be that the courts will construe "shall have regard" simply as meaning that evidence of that kind may be taken into account but will not be treated as constituting the offence. If that happens, then the proviso becomes unnecessary, but can it do any harm? Is it not a good idea, if that is the agreed intention of all of us, to put the proviso in the Bill to make sure that nothing but that is the result, in view of our experience with the remarkable development of phrases such as "special reasons" in road traffic legislation?
That is the argument, which was fairly generally, but not universally accepted in Committee, and which seemed to be accepted by the Government. With all respect to the purists in these matters, I think that a proviso put in to make sure is not a bad idea when we are launching a brand-new experiment in the law. I hope that even at this late hour the Government will change their mind back to where it was a fortnight ago and will accept the Amendment

Dr. Alan Thompson: It seems to me that implicit in the arguments of hon. Members opposite is the idea of somebody drunk in charge of a car, spectacularly drunk, recognisably drunk by the jury and by the doctors. The argument in the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) and others is based on the lesser charge—not drunk in the Harry Lauder sense of a man with a red nose staggering about the street, but a man

with impaired ability. That is the more subtle thing to be checked rather than the dramatic and spectacular example of the man who is drunk in charge.
It is the problem of the impairment of ability, on which so much research has been done by Professor Drew and others, which seems to argue against the views of hon. Members opposite. It has bean said that the effects of alcohol differ from person to person. They differ from person to person in the sense of our recognising people as being drunk, but a good deal of research has shown thai they they do not differ from person to person in the impairing of certain small and marginal reactions. Professor Drew, in his controlled experiments, showed that almost everybody had impairment in muscular responses and in reaction times. There was less distinction in vision, hearing and touch, but those skills which are important to complex decisions, required when in a traffic jam or in avoiding an accident, are affected in everybody by the content of alcohol in the blood.
Obviously, the effect on the reaction depends to some extent on the concentration of alcohol; the more alcohol, the more impairment. But it also depends on the complexity of the decision. It is precisely in this situation, when a task becomes complex, for example, in avoiding a child who runs across the road, or in a difficult situation in a traffic jam, that the major hazard arises to public safety. It is perhaps true that some of our simple reactions are improved by alcohol. For instance, we see a dim light if we are drunk which we cannot always see when we are sober. We can sometimes hear voices more subtly when drunk than when sober. I am quoting the opinion of experts. The experts have found that one's knees jerk more rapidly in response to stimuli when one is drunk.
But as soon as we consider the more complicated responses everybody is adversely affected by alcohol. If we shine a light on someone to test his reactions, a drunken man may respond better than a sober man. But if we say, "Press a pedal if a red light shines", or "Press a pedal one minute after it shines", or "Press an accelerator pedal if a green light shines", we are introducing choice into the situation, and then everybody is affected adversely by the


content of alcohol in the blood. In other words, as soon as we pass from simple to complicated responses, from simple reaction to choice or judgment, everybody's choice or judgment is adversely affected.
11.0 p.m.
I accept the point that some hardened drinkers might be very minimally affected in choice or judgment, but they are still affected. Their judgment might be affected in such a way that a clever lawyer, bringing a lot of other evidence before a jury partly composed of sympathetic motorists, might get the defendant off. I am sure that all hon. Members have been flooded as much as I have been by literature from various research institutions. The view of all the experts is that what alcohol affects is the central nervous system. By affecting that system it affects these elements of choice and judgment. This can be vary serious. When a small child runs across the road it does not matter how minimally the judgment is affected. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind.
The further problem in this whole question is that offenders under the Clause are not the traditional criminals. They are law-abiding people—a company director, or a trade union official, or even an hon. Member of this House who has had too much to drink. They are not in the professional criminal classes and, therefore, there is tendency to require a lot of evidence to convict thorn. This is not our view. We do not think that there should be a lot of evidence to convict them. On matters so crucial to road safety, an objective scientific test, whether of breath, urine or blood, should be brought to the fore of our legislation. Law-abiding citizens, who do not burgle, commit murder or any other crime must know in advance that this crime of drinking when in charge of a car is a crime and is just as reprehensible as any other of the crimes in our calendar.

Mr. Marsh: Would my hon. Friend apply this just as strictly to drunken pedestrians?

Dr. Thompson: Perhaps, but that is not what we are discussing.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the hon. Member saying that amateur criminals should

be convicted on a lower level of proof than professional criminals? That seems to be the burden of his argument.

Dr. Thompson: I am making the point that there is a tolerance by juries. Statistics show that where a sheriff or a magistrate convicts, he convicts more closely on the evidence whereas with the jury there is an element of sympathy, because juries often look round for reasons not to convict and a defence counsel will say, "We all do this all the time. These are rather unimportant sins". I am trying to tighten the provisions to obviate this evasion and to create the impression among members of the public that if they commit this offence they run up against the full rigour of the law.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): No one is sorrier than I am that my right hon. and learned Friend 'the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) is not here to answer the debate, not only because I spent over a year working very closely with him, but also because he worked very closely on this Bill, particularly in Committee and, I think, won golden opinions throughout. Since reference has been made to undertakings which he gave I might repeat their terms.
As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, the undertaking which he gave to reconsider this matter was in no more definite terms than these:
… if my hon. Friend should decide not to move the Amendment I would give an undertaking to consider the matter on Report in the hope—and it can only be a hope at this moment for reasons which I shall explain —that I may put down a Government Amendment on Report.
The hope is not fulfilled, but I do not think that the undertaking is breached.
My right horn, and learned Friend gave another undertaking in very definite terms that there would be no spot checks in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) fears. He said:
As I told the Committee earlier, there is no question of spot checks being taken with breath-testing instruments. If any hon. Member has fears about it, I can give an assurance that that is not a practice which will arise. We should not countenance it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1962; c. 148–68.]


That is about as firm an undertaking as one could reasonably ask for…

Mr. Gresham Cooke: And the Minister of State also said:
It is for those reasons that I should like to consider the Amendment further, for the weight of opinion in the Committee has been such that I should do so and I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will accept that explanation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1962; c. 170.]

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I accept that, and my right hon. and learned Friend did, of course, consider it extremely carefully, along with my right hon. Friend, and came to the conclusion that it was not practicable to include an Amendment in the sense suggested by my hon. Friends tonight.
The chief burden of their complaint is that there is insufficient emphasis placed on the need to corroborate the instrument, the breathalyser, but, under the law as it is in the Bill, it is for the courts to determine whether the evidence in a particular case justifies an accused being convicted. The Bill does not, in that respect, make any innovation or difference. If the Bill made it an offence for a person to drive with more than a prescribed level or proportion of alcohol in the blood, the position would be different, and there might be substance in my hon. Friend's fears, but the Bill does not do that. Neither the amount of evidence nor the type of evidence which would justify conviction has been varied, and 'the Government are content to trust the juries in the courts to determine the law in the future as they have in the past, in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Rudslip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) emphasised.
It may be argued that even if these assumptions are not justified, there would be no objection to inserting words which would, make it clear that a driver could not be convicted solely on the evidence of an alcohol test alone—that was the ex abundi caudelia argument—as it has been called—put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and there are other objections of a general nature to such a course.
It is for the courts to determine in a particular case whether the evidence justifies a verdict that an offence under

Section 6 of the 1960 Act caused by un-fitness to drive through drink or drugs has been committed. It is for the court to determine the weight to be attached to any particular evidence, including breathalyser evidence, and to determine whether the evidence of the prosecution justifies a conviction. It is inconsistent with the principles of English law of evidence in criminal cases to lay down in a Statute the amount of evidence required for conviction.
It is true that in certain statutes the law draws attention to the desirability of the evidence of potentially unreliable witnesses requiring corroboration in certain cases; as in the case of accomplices, or children of tender years. The Amendment would not be aimed at determining the alcohol test, but would require the inference to be drawn from that test to be supplemented by additional and independent evidence. That would be a departure from precedent. The Government have given careful consideration to the Amendment, but they are confident that the accused is not going to be prejudiced under the Bill as it stands, and they see decisive objections to the inclusion of words on the lines of the Amendment. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended be adjourned.
I move this Motion to find out what the Government have in mind about the remainder of Report stage. We have made very considerable progress today, but we still have a great deal to do. There are various highly controversial matters which have not yet been considered by the House. When I asked the Leader of the House, last Thursday, whether he really thought that it was possible to deal with Report and Third Reading in one day, he said that we would see how we got on but that he did not intend to ask the House to sit late.
If we are to deal with the remainder of the Report stage and with the Third Reading tonight, we shall obviously have to sit very late indeed. I therefore hope that the Government will agree to adjourn now and continue with


the Bill on another day. I hope that the Minister of Transport will be able to give us information on this point which will be acceptable to both sides of the House.

Mr. Marples: Being Minister of Transport, I would not have said that we have made a considerable amount of progress, but a certain amount of progress: [HON. MEMBERS: "There is a speed limit".] But it has been enforced strictly. The contributions which have been made from both sides of the House have been made in all sincerity and I do not think that there has been any of what I would call filibustering, or time wasting, by any hon. Member who has spoken. Therefore, I have reason to hope that if we did adjourn now all the remaining Amendments plus the Third Reading could be taken in half a day of the Government's time.
I think that I am right in saying that that has been agreed through the usual channels. Some hon. Members refer to them differently, but I believe that we could get the remainder of this business through in half a day. If we could do that, I would agree to the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FARMER'S CLAIM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House the sad and distressing case of Mr. Holmes, of Hominghold. Before proceeding (to elaborate this sad story, I offer my sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I am privileged to have this opportunity of addressing him on his first appearance on the Front Bench. May I remind him that it has been the tradition of previous holders of his illustrous office to pay particular and sympathetic attention to such cases as hon. Members might seek to liaise in Adjournment debates?
The case of Mr. Holmes is, indeed, a sad one. To put it bluntly and briefly, he has had a raw deal. He farms in the middle of Leicestershire what one might call a typical Leicestershire mixed farm. He keeps a few cows, grows some corn and does some grazing. As I say, he is a typical Leicestershire farmer who carries out a mixed farming programme.
My sad tale begins on 11th May, 1960, when Mrs. Holmes, acting in a secretarial capacity for her husband— and it is more than ever necessary now for medium-sized and even small farmers to have secretarial assistance to deal with the complexity of the forms which it is their lot to have to fill in— completed for him and submitted for his signature a form known well to Ministry officials, and one with which my hon. Friend will probably be acquainted. This is form CDP.1/60, which is a claims form relating to cereal deficiency payments and records the acreage sown to wheat, oats, rye and barley. Mrs. Holmes, for her husband's benefit, also completed a copy of the form which the Ministry is good enough to send to busy farmers. The original having been completed, it was dispatched to the Ministry's Office in Northampton.
The next chapter in this sad story begins on 10th June, 1960, when, after Mrs. Holmes bad completed for her husband another large form, namely, the June return, this document was signed by her husband and submitted to Northampton. The June return is slightly more elaborate than the CDP.1/60 document in that it requires a fairly detailed assessment of the farmer's enterprise, the crops growing, the number of people employed by him, details of stock on the land and other matters.
Mr. Holmes recorded on this form for her husband the fact that a certain amount of ground was sown to oats and a certain amount to wheat. It might be as well to record that on both these forms she entered that 27 acres were sown to oats, 74½ acres to wheat and none to barley or rye. The year continued and on 19th September, when in the course of harvesting this field of 27 acres, Mr. Holmes noticed in the


Farmers' Weekly a statement to the effect that by that date fanners should have received a form known as CDP.2/60, which is a declaration of harvesting. It had to be completed in connection with the oats shown on form CDP.1/60.
Mr. Holmes had not received this form, and, rather mystified as to the reason for the non-receipt of this form, telephoned the Ministry offices in Northampton and, not unnaturally, asked where it was. This was on 19th September. He received a promise that the officials in Northampton would look into his question and try to find out where this form was and why he had not received it. Having had no reply, he wrote to them on 23rd September, again calling their attention to the absence of CDP.2/60 asking that it be sent to him forthwith. It was only a day or two later, still in September, about 25th September, that he learned that, by a very unfortunate accident, on CDP.1/60 which had been submitted, and which had been completed by his wife for him, all reference to oats had been omitted.
Now, it is a very easy clerical error to make. The fact that oats had been sown was correctly recorded in the June return; it was correctly recorded on the copy of CDP.2/60 which Mrs. Holmes had made; but for some unknown reason it had not been included on the original form sent in. Mr. Holmes immediately asked that an inspector be sent out from the Ministry to see the field, which was then still uncut—indeed, he had only just started to cut it—so that there could be no doubt whatsoever that it had been sown.
The form CDP.1/60 which Mr. Holmes had eaxlier submitted without mention on it of the field of oats had been submitted on 11th May. As my toon. Friend knows very well, the final date for submission of CDP.1/60 is 31st July. So when Mr. Holmes telephoned and asked the Ministry officials to ascertain for themselves that this crop had been sown he was only six or seven weeks out of date. The reply which Mr. Holmes got from the Ministry at Northampton was that there was no point whatsoever in their sending out officially to look at the field; the deadline of 31st July incorporated in the form in question had to be adhered to; it was immaterial so far

as the Ministry were concerned whether he had sown oats or not, and whether his wife had made a mistake in completing the form or not; the regulations were there and they had to be conformed with.
In this regimented and regulated world regimentation and regulations are very necessary, and it is even very necessary to have many regulations under the complex system of support which our agricultural industry enjoys at the moment, and that if a form has to be submitted by a particular date—in this case, 31st July—to keep the system ticking over, it really should be in by that date, but what I want to ask my hon. Friend tonight, and what I was referring to a little earlier, when I asked him to follow the illustrious example set by his predecessors who have been noted for the compassion and sympathy they have shown in such instances as this, is: why cannot we temper this rigidity with a little justice?
Did Parliament, when it passed the regulations in the first place, really mean to penalise to this extent? To Mr. Holmes the cost will be about £200 in loss of cereal deficiency payment. Did Parliament really mean to penalise a farmer who does not notice, when submitting a form, that an item is missing from it—a busy fanner who returns home in the evening to attend to his book work, including the P.A.Y.E. forms for his employees, and countless other hard clerical jobs? I wonder whether Parliament really meant that these regulations were to be conformed with so strictly.
I submit that this is an error which it is easy for a clerk sitting at a desk in the City of London to make. Moreover, such a clerk, far more accustomed to figures than a farmer in Leicestershire, would not discover next day that he had been fined £200 for the error. Also, he would be trained in bookkeeping, which is not one of the natural accomplishments of the average farmer.
Why could not a Ministry official have gone to see that the crop was really growing in the field when the telephone message was made? Why could not an adjustment have been made to the form at that time? Even now, possibly, it is not too late. I have seen Mr. Holmes,


I have visited the field, and I have talked to independent witnesses who saw the crop of oats growing in the field. My hon. Friend will agree with me that the object of the deficiency payments scheme for oats is to assist those who grow oats. That is Parliament's intention. I, personally, am quite satisfied that Mr. Holmes grew the oats.
The previous Parliamentary Secretary wrote me a letter in which he said that only exceptional circumstances would permit a form to be altered after submission or the acceptance of a form which was submitted too late. I ask my hon. Friend to be kind enough to tell me what those exceptional circumstances a,re. In conclusion, I ask him whether he would not agree with me that the object of the scheme is to see that justice is done and to pay farmers who grow oats, and, bearing that in mind, could he not possibly temper the rigidity, firmness and inflexibility of the scheme with a little give and take?

11.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for the very kind words with which he began his speech. I am very grateful to him for this opportunity to explain the general principles which have governed the case referred to by him and which have made us adopt what he obviously considered to be a rather unhelpful attitude.
I think that, first, I should explain the general principles governing these payments. I need hardly remind my hon. Friend that deficiency payments on cereals last year amounted to approximately £60 million, and I am sure that he will agree that we have a responsibility to administer the deficiency payment scheme not only efficiently and economically but also fairly among farmers. This is a serious responsibility, and we must, therefore, be satisfied that the conditions of the scheme are being complied with.
This means that there must be—I think that the House will see the need without elaboration on my part—a fixed date for the acceptance of claims. Without a time limit, it makes it very difficult to administer schemes efficiently.

That is why the closing date of 31st July, which applies to these acreage payments schemes, was adopted, because it is the latest practical one to give sufficient time for the necessary field inspection of the crops. When my hon. Friend is thinking about this, I would ask him to bear in mind that there are large numbers of inspections involved if one is to carry out the scheme correctly and the need to dovetail them with the other work of the field staff is important. This work involves 130,000 claims for barley, oats and mixed corn acreage deficiency payments annually. The Ministry usually tries to check at least one-third of the 130,000 claims, or about 40,000 a year.
A request to add acreages of barley, oats or mixed corn to a claim under the 1960 scheme constituted a fresh claim and, therefore, had to be received by the closing date of 31st July, as my hon. Friend has explained. Claims received after that date could be admitted only if for some reason the grower had been prevented by circumstances beyond his control from completing or submitting a form in time. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the point, because, obviously, it is of importance, particularly in the present case, as it will be to other people in similar circumstances.
The special circumstances to which my hon. Friend asked me to refer are an administrative fault on the part of the Ministry or another Government Department, on the one hand, and, on the other, ill-health of the farmer concerned or domestic hardship to the farmer or his family. An example of illness would be a small farmer running a farm on his own who falls ill and is unable to complete his form. An example of circumstances beyond his control would be if the farmer posited the form by recorded delivery service or registered mail, but it was not delivered in time. Proof of having posted it would be regarded as evidence of circumstances that were beyond his control and he would, therefore, be eligible for payment if his form was received late.
We do a great deal to ensure that farmers know about our insistence on a fixed closing date for the submission of acreage claims. This was the case in 1960, to which my hon. Friend referred, just as it is today. Farmers are reminded about it on their original


claim form which is sent to them in the spring, in about April, and we also have a system whereby growers who look like failing to submit their form in time are sent a postcard reminder to take action. Over and above this, there are radio, television and Press announcements. The farming Press, in particular, publishes particulars to farmers reminding them to submit their claims. So much for the general arrangements.
I turn now to the case of Mr. Holmes. My hon. Friend brought this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister in correspondence some time ago and I have today looked carefully into it. As far as I can make out, the facts are similar to those given by my hon. Friend tonight. Briefly, at the end of April, 1960, a claim form, CDP.1/60, for cereals deficiency payment for the 1960 harvest was seat to Mr. Holmes. It was received and accepted from him in the Northampton Division, after he had completed it, on 12th May, 1960.
The form declared a wheat acreage of 74·5 acres and showed specifically that there was no claim for barley, oats or mixed corn as the word "nil" had been written by hand in all the columns appropriate to those cereals. I have seen the original form and I assure my hon. Friend that that is a fact.
On 23rd September, 1960, Mr. Holmes wrote to the divisional office saying that he had not as yet received a form CDP.2/60. This is the form which the grower signs to declare that he has harvested the acreage previously claimed as grain. My hon. Friend made a point about the quarterly June return, but it cannot be, and has never been, the practice to admit this as an alternative or substitute for a claim for a cereal deficiency payment. To make an exception in this one case would create a precedent which it would be almost impossible to follow.
Mr. Holmes was told that as he had shown only wheat on this form, that is CDP.1/60, which is paid on a tonnage harvested basis, no CDP.2/60 was necessary since an acreage payment was not involved. In reply, Mr. Holmes informed the Ministry that entered on the copy of form CDP.1/60 which he had retained for his record was 27 acres of

oats, and that he felt sure that this was entered on the original claim form sent to the Ministry, and not a wheat acreage only.
Mr. Holmes was informed that no acreage of oats had been entered on his original claim form, and that the last day for receipts of claims on barley, oats and mixed corn was 31st July, and that under the provisions of the Cereals Deficiency Payments Scheme bis supplementary claim in respect of 27 acres of oats could not be accepted.
Mr. Holmes appealed against this decision and his case was taken up by the secretory of the Leicester County Branch of the National Fanners' Union. This was given careful consideration, but a ruling had to be given that amendment of the original claim form to include a supplementary claim for 27 acres of oats could not be accepted. In the course of the correspondence on the case it was represented that the difficulty had arisen through a mistake on the part of the person completing the form for Mr. Holmes which, as my hon. Friend said, was his wife.
This type of mistake cannot be deemed to fall into the category of either illness or something beyond his control, or, indeed, a mistake on the part of any Government Department, and, therefore, falls outside these provisions. My hon. Friend has said that 27 acres of oats were, in fact, grown, and I accept this. Therefore, I am sure that everybody in the House will agree that this is a most deserving case and that Mr. Holmes is deserving of the sympathy of the House. Although there has been a genuine error, and however unfortunate the circumstances, in fairness to others the rules of a scheme of this sort must be complied with.
Subsequently my hon. Friend raised this matter with my right hon. Friend on two occasions in correspondence and represented that the decision taken in the case was unreasonable, as he has said again this evening. When these further representations were received, another careful look was taken at Mr. Holmes' case, but although we have ever sympathy with him in this unfortunate predicament, my right hon. Friend, after full consideration, decided that there was no way of setting aside the normal rules in Mr. Holmes' favour.
I assure my hon. Friend that we do appreciate that farmers nowadays have a lot of forms to complete, but our rules are not drawn up, as my hon. Friend implied, with the intention of preventing anyone from obtaining deficiency payments. The opposite is the case. We want to encourage this. This is the object of the payments and the scheme. We all have more clerical work to do than we would like, but, bearing in mind the sums of money involved in these schemes, it is clearly very much in the farmers' own interests to see that the paper work is done correctly.
Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any wish to penalise farmers for errors, but the rules of the various support schemes have to be complied with, and we expect farmers to play their part. Most farmers do this, and we are grateful for their co-operation, which greatly assists the administration of these schemes. It seems quite clear that in this case it was Mr. Holmes' responsibility to submit his claim correctly and on time.
Having said that, I recognise that my hon. Friend has focused attention on a point of some difficulty in the rules of this scheme. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that a case of this precise kind can no longer arise. In the light of our experience of the working of this scheme since 1959–60 we have varied its conditions so that a mistake in the acreage originally claimed can be rectified at the time of sending the

declaration of harvesting, that is, about the end of October, so there could not be a repetition of Mr. Holmes' case. This change did not take effect until 1961, and, unfortunately, cannot be applied in the case of Mr. Holmes.
I know that this will seem very hard to Mr. Holmes, but the position is that we cannot apply the new rules retrospectively. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have been into this matter thoroughly, and that, much as I would like to be able to help Mr. Holmes, to make an exception in his case would create considerable unfairness to those farmers who, for one reason or another, did not apply at that time, in 1960, for a cereal deficiency payment—because they knew that they were too late, or did not know the regulations, or were told that they had missed their opportunity.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take comfort in the fact that the rules have now been eased, and that the kind of case which he has raised tonight should not occur again from now onwards.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Whilst it is of no direct comfort to Mr. Holmes, I am sure that he will be more than satisfied to know that the investigation of his sad case has resulted in our obtaining some relaxation of the rigidity of the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.